CT: City Hall scene of election day dispute

West Haven News: City Hall scene of election day dispute <read>

By Abbe Smith , Special to the News

WEST HAVEN – A heated dispute erupted at City Hall early Tuesday when Democratic Registrar of Voters candidate Michelle Hufcut – running unopposed – showed up at the designated polling station in apparent disregard of a state law that prohibits candidates from being near polls.
Police were eventually called to the scene to separate Hufcut and current Democratic Registrar Charles Marino in an effort to keep the confrontation between the two from escalating.
Hufcut defeated Marino in an August primary, but doesn’t take control of the office until January. She said she came to City Hall Tuesday with the intention of shadowing Republican Registrar of Voters JoAnn Callegari during the busy presidential election.
Although she ran unopposed in Tuesday’s municipal election, Hufcut’s name was on the ballot, making her a candidate.
“The law stipulates that 75 feet from any polling station, candidates must stay away,” Marino argued.
When Marino found Hufcut in the registrar’s office early Tuesday, he asked her to leave, citing the state law. When she refused, he called police, demanding that she be arrested or removed from the building.
Hufcut defended her presence at City Hall, arguing she was merely trying to get some training from Callegari in handling a large election. She noted that she was not campaigning at City Hall, as she is running unopposed for the office.
“I was simply there to observe and help,” she said, also noting that she was in a back office and not near the actual polls, which were in the basement of City Hall. Hufcut said she spoke to Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz about her plan to shadow a registrar and that Bysiewicz approved the plan.
Adam Joseph, spokesman for the secretary of the state, said he could not confirm whether Bysiewicz approved the plan. He said Marino and Callegari contacted Deputy Secretary of the State Lesley Mara about the situation and were told that it is “inappropriate” for Hufcut to be at the polling station on Election Day.

“We felt that because today is a presidential election, it would be best if she were not in the office,” he said. Mara also informed Marino that Hufcut was not in his office at the directive of Bysiewicz.

Marino said he called police and then he and his staff walked off the job for about two hours and refused to go back to work until Hufcut left the building. He said the absence did not affect voting or vote-counting in West Haven.

Police Officer Angelo Moscato confirmed that police responded to a call at City Hall Tuesday morning. Upon arrival, officers separated Marino and Hufcut and diffused the conflict. Hufcut eventually left the building, ending the dispute.

I inquired of Lesley Mara and she kindly pointed me to the law <9-326>

It seems to be true that in the law candidates are not allowed near the polling place except to vote, election officials (that includes registrars) being an exception. Perhaps a case could be made about where Ms. Hugcut was located, not being one of those excluded places, maybe not. Presumably, Mr. Marino and his staff saw no actual danger to voting with Ms. Hugcut in the building, out of their sight, since they left.

One of those cases where “the law is an ass”, likely an understandable obscure unanticipated consequence. Ironically Mr. Moreno was able to oversee his own primary with Ms. Hugcut, have unsupervised access to the ballots before and after the election, and lead the post-election audit of that election as well, all fully legal under the law – a substantial danger to election integrity and confidence, one that we would like to see changed.

CT: Historic: Third Party Registrar Elected In Hartford

Hartford Courant: Working Families Party Candidate Makes History in Hartford <read>

Add Urania Petit’s name to the list of people who made election history Tuesday.

Petit, a social worker and Working Families Party candidate for registrar of voters in Hartford, outpolled her Republican counterpart by more than 200 votes.

With that, city voters made Petit the first third-party candidate ever elected to a registrar’s office in Connecticut, according to the secretary of the state. Hartford will soon have three registrars — a Democrat, a Republican and a Working Families.

“My goal is not to register 20,000 for the Working Families,” she said. “When I get into city hall, it’s not even about Working Families. It’s about registering people, educating people and trying to increase voter participation.”

State law says the state’s two majority parties are guaranteed a registrar in each town. It also says that the candidates for registrar with the highest and second highest number of votes win the posts.

In Hartford, traditionally an extreme one party town, this is a good result. Voters register Democratic to vote in primaries, which for all intents and purposes determine the eventual winners in city elections. Of late, The Working Families Party has fielded candidates and received minority representation status on the Council. Without questioning anyone’s honesty, it adds credibility to have a representative of the second highest vote getting party at the table, participating in, and monitoring the process.

One of the unintended consequences of Petit’s election is fiscal. Bramante said registrars now are paid $80,000 a year, their deputies get roughly $60,000 and assistants are paid about $40,000. Those salaries and benefits are all paid by the city. The adopted budget for the registrars’ office this year — which didn’t anticipate Vazquez’s victory — is about $650,000. Last year, the office began with a spending plan of roughly $760,000 and, with cost overruns, wound up spending over $1 million.

This is not Petit’s fault. This is consistent with Hartford’s reputation for bureaucratic over staffing and over paying. Another Registrar is a reason to require less staff, not more. Perhaps there should be a third deputy, but then how about two less assistants. The pay scale also seems way above the area average, as we understand it, and with three registrars perhaps they should each work 2/3 time.

“In order for people to become engaged in the process, we need to educate them about voting, and that’s why I want to be registrar,” she said…

On the registration side, though, their numbers are small. According to Bramante, the city has 36,140 registered Democrats, 2,138 Republicans, 11,398 unaffiliated voters and 78 voters that are classified as “other” — which includes Working Families voters.

More voters in Hartford would be great for Democracy. It seems obvious from the numbers that with one dominant party the voters may see little reason to vote.

Previously we disagreed with a Courant Editorial which recommended against a third party Registrar, in favor of having only one: Downsizing Newspaper Recommends Downsizing Registrars <read>

CT: Glitches In ConnPost Article

ConnPost: “Glitches didn’t affect election outcome” <read>

CTVotersCount.org: “Not So Fast, Please”

A ConnPost article gives a broad brush feel good assessment of the election. We are not ready to agree that everything went fine. We have no reason to doubt that the results were accurate enough that the voters’ intent was realized in the results, however, we will wait for the results of the post-election audit and other analysis. Unfortunately, unless this audit goes much differently than the last three we will still be left with a level of uncertainty.

We also have some comments on the details in the article.

The Article says:

Some individuals filled in circles for Jim Himes on both parties.

“Those votes counted and would register under the Working Families party for qualification purposes.,” said Bysiewicz. She said the machines would not reject those votes unless the ballot was filled out incorrectly elsewhere.

There must be some confusion on the part of the Secretary of the State or the ConnPost:

Fact: For voters that fill in bubbles for a cross endorsed candidate twice, they should be counted by the machine as Himes Unk (Unknown). When only one bubble is filled in then they would be counted for Himes Dem or Himes Wkf etc.

So unless the particular machine was programmed incorrectly, the article is incorrect.

The Article says:

In Stratford, two districts were combined in one polling place which led to voters getting and voting on the wrong ballot…

Because of the Stratford situation, Bysiewicz said she intends to “strongly urge” Advertisement registrars of voters never to use the same optical scanning machine for two different districts.

“Every polling place has to have two machines,” she said. “I don’t know why they did this.”

As a result people were given the wrong ballots and voted for the wrong state legislators.

“We believe the machine accepted 50 to 75 of these ballots,” said Bysiewicz. “But the margins of victory were such that it didn’t impact any of these elections.” Stratford”s registrars of voters could not be reached for comment Wednesday afternoon. As a result it could not be determined where this took place.

This won’t solve the problem:

What is needed is two completely different checkin lines leading to two separate ballot clerks and optimally two sets of booths leading to two separate machines. If someone gets the wrong ballot then the most likely result would be rejection on one machine and the voter directed to feed it into the other machine. So, having two machines is not a complete solution. The solution must prevent the voter from getting the wrong ballot in the 1st place and not getting a wrong replacement if they need to try again.

500 voters upset with Democracy is not a good outcome: Continue reading “CT: Glitches In ConnPost Article”

CT: A Long Valuable Day As An Election Official

I hear and I forget.
I see and I remember.
I do and I understand. – Confucius

One of my goals this year was to obtain more hands-on experience in the election process by serving as an election official. In August I attended moderator training. I became a certified moderator which, in no way qualified me to actually be a moderator (I would describe a moderator as the czar of a polling place). Reading the manual and taking the training would never be enough for me to grasp such a job, without perhaps several years experience as a poll worker. Thanks to Judi Beaudreau, Moderator Trainer, and Registrar of Voters, Vernon, CT, I worked one of the polls in Vernon this year. I spent about half my time as a ballot clerk and about half as machine tender.
Continue reading “CT: A Long Valuable Day As An Election Official”

CT: Voter Reg System Said To Be Working Well

Update: Roundup

P.M Carpenter: The American Gauntlet of Election Day <read>.
Video example of hurdles in Philadelphia: <view>

************Original Story**************
Stamford Advocate story <read>

Karen Lyons has not been the biggest booster of Connecticut’s new centralized voter system, a database accessible to registrars statewide to help them prevent voter fraud.

Lyons, Norwalk’s Republican registrar of voters, and her Democratic counterpart defied a requirement a few years ago to participate in the system, saying it was unreliable.

But the kinks have been worked out, Lyons said.

“They’re smokin’ now,” she said.

It’s the kind of response Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, a Democrat, wants to hear.

Bysiewicz’s office and the state Information Technology Department have been working for the past few months to upgrade the system.

“We installed new routers in every town hall in the state so we would make communication faster,” Bysiewicz said. “And we expanded the capacity of the system to handle many registrars and their assistants using the system at the same time.”

Participation was mandated by the federal Help America Vote Act in response to irregularities in the 2000 presidential election.

Video: Hacking Voting Machine in 6min 51sec

Princeton Professor Andrew Appel hacks voting machine in 6 min and 51 sec for CNN host: <video>

Anyone familiar with Connecticut’s Diebold AccuVote-OS would be able to beat that 6 min and 51 sec, especially if they had a copy of one of the keys for the machine (hint they are all the same key, statewide, and worldwide) and spent a little time studying the art of defeating tamper evident seals.

Professor Appel correctly points out that having an optical scan system is much better because the paper can be recounted to verify the results. Regular readers of CTVotersCount know that Connecticut recounts by machine, which negates much of that benefit.

eTRICK or reTREAT? Nightmare of Elections Future

Editor’s Note:  Posted Halloween 2009.  Rush Holt has moved on from the House, yet we still face the danger of putting off needed reforms.

Like many voters, I am concerned about the integrity of this year’s election. Last night I was visited by three visions of elections future. From 2008, 2012 or 2016. I’m a little hazy on some of the details, but the visions were worse than anything yet imagined.

The Ghost Of Presidential Elections Future:
It seems the problems all stemmed from what happened in the 2008 election and its aftermath. Its a little hazy but the ghost warned of three possible outcomes:

Editor’s Note:  Posted Halloween 2009.  Rush Holt has moved on from the House, yet we still face the danger of putting off needed reforms.

Like many voters, I am concerned about the integrity of this year’s election. Last night I was visited by three visions of elections future. From 2008, 2012 or 2016. I’m a little hazy on some of the details, but the visions were worse than anything yet imagined.

The Ghost Of Presidential Elections Future:
It seems the problems all stemmed from what happened in the 2008 election and its aftermath. Its a little hazy but the ghost warned of three possible outcomes:

  1. The polls are said to be very very wrong:
    The people chose one candidate for President, but manipulations of the data, voter suppression, or Supreme Court action made the other candidate the winner. The media covers every reason but the obvious one that goes unreported. The really scary part was that the voters docilely accepted it – instead of hitting the streets, we all ended up on the streets over time.
  2. The polls are only off a “little”: The predicted candidate won the Presidency by a small margin. Instead of the predicted 58-60 Democrats in the Senate and 20 more in the House, there were 54-55 in the Senate and 5 more in the House. Activists continued to object and present a wealth of facts. They are dismissed by the media as “conspiracy theorists”.
  3. The polls were accurate: The election results were as predicted. The predicted candidate won the Presidency. There were 58-60 Democrats in the Senate and about 20 more in the House. A few hard core activists remained, were completely ignored by the media, yet continued the fight for election integrity. The potential of election theft remained, while the potential for election integrity all but vanished.

To paraphrase Walter Cronkite, “Nothing has changed, but your votes are not there”. The nightmare continued:

Beltway Lugosi Appears, The D.C. Goblin:
How could this have happened? Surely by 2012 or by 2016 we would have had election integrity.

  1. Rep. Rush Holt proposes a better, stronger bill in 2009: The caucus says “what’s the rush Rush, come back later its too soon – we have important issues to deal with, there is plenty of time before the next Presidential Election”.
  2. A persistent Rush Holt proposes a better, stronger bill in 2010: – House Leadership says “its too much, work on it and come back next year”.
  3. Rush Holt proposes weakened bill in 2011 – Everyone says “Its too late, the election officials can’t get it done in a rush Rush, come back after the next election when there will be plenty of time”.
  4. Rush Holt proposes a better, stronger bill in 2009 and it passes the House – The Feinstein/Bennett bill is immediately resurrected in the Senate and passes – it is all put into a joint committee – the result is the “Star Wars” of voting with spending as far as the eye can see and even less voting integrity than 2008.

At least in Connecticut, we can rest assured that our votes will count, with our nickname, “The Constitution State”. Even if the voters approve the ballot question in 2008 to have a Constitutional Convention, surely we can rely on our other nickname, “The Land of Steady Habits” to carry the day and eventually, some day, protect our votes. The nightmare continued:

The Devil Is Truly In The details:

Connecticut earns its nickname, “The Nutmeg State“. When it comes to post-election audit law, the “Devil” is truly in the details.

  1. The Shays/Himes Congressional race is close, less than .5% There is a recanvass(recount). Since recounts are by machine, if Himes(D) loses, Secretary Bysiewicz(D) cannot call for a manual recount without being charged with being political. If Shays(R) loses, she would be under great pressure to reverse her decision to recount by machine.
  2. The Constitution question is close, less than .5%, and there is a recanvass(recount).
    Since recounts are by machine, if “No” loses, Secretary of the State Bysiewicz, a strong supporter of “No”, could not call for a manual recount without being charged with making a political decision. If “Yes” loses, she would be under great pressure to reverse her decision to recount by machine.Worse, a single statewide recount, by law, eliminates all post-election audits, even if the Shays/Himes Congressional race is close but over .5%.
  3. The Constitution question is close but over .5%:
    It will not be audited – questions are exempt from post-election audits in Connecticut
  4. The Shays/Himes Congressional race is close but over .5% and is not randomly selected for audit: We randomly select three offices for audit statewide. Instead of auditing close races for the U.S. Congress or the State Legislature we may waste resources excessively counting races with huge margins, or those with unopposed candidates, such as most races for Registrar of voters.

I am awake now. With hard work and some luck, the voters choices may be confirmed in the election results and the voters could awake after the election to stay eternally vigilant. Some may say that this is just a dream, but it is preferable to the alternative nightmare.

U.S. Map of Presidential Post-Election Audits

Verified Voting has created color coded map of the state of post-election audits of the Presidential race in each state: <view>

States are classified in 6 categories based on the existence and details of their post-election audit laws relative to the Presidential race and the 2008 election.

How does Connecticut rate?
We are in the second best category with the state of Washington and behind fifteen states, which puts us ahead of thirty three states.

Why? We rate higher than most states because we have paper ballots and an audit. We are in the second tier because of our audit lottery – depending on the luck of the draw we will either audit the Presidential race or not. (Sadly we also have a fixed 10% audit of selected races, over auditing/spending in some races and under auditing/spending in other races)

Nationwide: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

We won’t go into all the details here, but in case you have not been keeping up, there have been many small and large problems occuring across the country lately.  It started with recent elections in Washington D.C., Palm Beach, and Rhode Island highlighted at CTVotersCount.org <read> <read> Now with early voting and problems with absentee voting we have several stories each day of election problems from around the country.  The best place to keep up is Daily Voting News – too many stories in one day to read them all <latest> Along with some good summary articles on some of the problems at BradBlog.

Commentary:

  • The Ugly: These incidents point out the ugly facts that every voter’s opportunity to vote is not effectively guaranteed, and that counting every vote, and counting every vote accurately is a myth. We must improve the system such that we can trust the final outcome of elections, even if counting every last vote is a ideal that may never be quite realized. We should have a fully protected right to vote.
  • The Bad: We may elect the wrong candidates or decide questions incorrectly through fraud, error, incompetence, and lack of vigilance. Many of these problems may be small and ultimately irrelevant to the result – many may be significant.
  • The Good: At least we are surfacing and highlighting these problems. Apparently many similar problems have been going on for years – but were either covered up, brushed aside, or just did not get the national attention deserved. More and more the public is becoming aware of the problems which is the first step toward solutions.

CT: Misstatements In Stamford Advocate

Three days ago we pointed out misleading statements made by the Secretary of the State on WNPR.

Now we see some similar misinformation in the Stamford Advocate. <read>

Was the Secretary of the State misquoted or misleading?

Legislation introduced this year that would have required poll workers to give all voters privacy folders and to maintain a “zone of privacy” around the ballot machines did not pass. But poll workers have been instructed to abide by such privacy rules nonetheless, Bysiewicz said.

Connecticut has one of the most carefully monitored voting systems in the United States, she said. Before and after every election, state officials send every ballot machine memory card to the University of Connecticut computer science department to be inspected for tampering or defects. And officials do a hand-count audit of 10 percent of all ballots cast.

“Connecticut is a leader in voting security and integrity because we don’t take the machine count as gospel,” Bysiewicz said.

We must give the benefit of the doubt to both the Secretary and the Stamford Advocate since the statements are not in quotes. All we can be sure of is that they are inaccurate and misleading.

  1. “Before and after every election, state officials send every ballot machine memory card to the University of Connecticut computer science department” – No! Some cards are sent to UConn before some elections, some cards are sent to UConn after some elections, sometimes cards have been sent by local election officials, and sometimes by our vendor, LHS in Massachusetts. Typically about one card per district or 25% are tested.See the reports from UConn.
  2. “And officials do a hand-count audit of 10 percent of all ballots cast” – No! Only those ballots counted by optical scanners in polling places are counted in the audit. Not audited are centrally counted absentee ballots originally counted by optical scanner and all ballots originally counted by hand.