FAQ: Why Would Anyone Steal A Referendum?

Connecticut’s post-election audit law exempts referendums and questions from audit. Often we hear that nobody would steal a referendum, that local control of elections in Connecticut would preclude that. We object: Two motivations and opportunities: The Town has the budget referendum turned down frequently at $20,000+ per referendum for a turnout of a small % … Continue reading “FAQ: Why Would Anyone Steal A Referendum?”

Connecticut’s post-election audit law exempts referendums and questions from audit. Often we hear that nobody would steal a referendum, that local control of elections in Connecticut would preclude that. We object:

Two motivations and opportunities:

The Town has the budget referendum turned down frequently at $20,000+ per referendum for a turnout of a small % of registered voters.

  • All the insiders of all parties are for it
  • Many town hall jobs are dependent on it
  • The insiders convince themselves that “if the right voters showed up then it would pass”
  • They think they are helping out the town out by passing the budget and saving multiple election costs
  • All look the other way

One insider is convinced the budget is too big.

  • Convinced that “If the people really knew then they would vote it down”
  • When nobody is looking, the insider takes advantage of sole access to voting machines and ballots, to hack the machine with the Hursti Hack before the election.

Constitutional Vote Will Not Be Audited

When Connecticut voters go to the polls in November, they will vote on calling a Constitutional Convention. Large groups are aligned for and against the bill with those in charge of the election opposed. Our personal stand for or against the bill is irrelevant. Integrity and confidence in elections is our concern.

Our points are that like all questions and referendums that vote is exempt from the post-election audit law and that those charged with running elections should not audit themselves. Questions should not be exempt from audit – they are not exempt from error and fraud. We need an independent election audit authority – audit decisions should not be made by the entity being audited.
Continue reading “Constitutional Vote Will Not Be Audited”

Puma Arizona – Some Good News

Things have not been looking good in Puma Arizona. But, some good news is that the Election Integrity Commission is acting to audit ballot security. This is what is supposed to happen with an independent board — when problems are found they are investigated and not ignored or explained away: <read>

A Pima County Elections Integrity Commission will oversee an investigation that will look at all ballot bags from the 373 polling places used in the Sept. 2 primary elections.
That decision was made after a sample audit later that week showed some ballot bags were improperly sealed or did not contain all required certification materials.

Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits

(Full disclosure: I contributed to, participated in reviewing, and editing this document)

Released today at a press conference in Alexandria, VA, after many months of work:

http://www.electionaudits.org/files/best%20practices%20final_0.pdf

These principles were written to guide the design of high-quality post- election audits. They were developed by an ad hoc group comprising many stakeholders, including election officials, public advocates, computer scientists, statisticians, political scientists and legislators.

Nearly all US elections today are counted using electronic voting systems. Such voting systems have produced result- changing errors through problems with hardware, software, and procedures.[1] Errors can also occur in hand counting of ballots or in the compiling of results. Even serious error can go undetected if results are not audited effectively.

No person, voting official, legislator, or expert can comprehend the whole voting and auditing process. At some point we must rely on the considered judgment of experts rather than only on individual experience. Using these principles state legislators can assess and improve current election and post-election audit laws. Using the principles and best practices election officials can improve the integrity and confidence of the post-election audit process. In turn providing integrity and confidence in our elections and democracy.

The last page of the document has the list of endorsing groups:

VerifiedVoting – Common Cause
Brennan Center For Justice – American Statistical Association
Advocate groups from MN, MI, MA, CO, FL and CT

Update:  PCWorld Coverage

Update: New Mexico Independent Coverage

The Future Of Post-Election Auditing? – Faster, More Economical, Greater Confidence

Can we audit or recount by machine, rather than hand-counting? My conditional answer remains a strong NO. However, as we have discussed before it is quite possible in theory to develop voting machines or auxiliary scanners with capabilities that can greatly reduce the cost, while increasing the integrity of audits, and increasing the confidence in elections.

Now a team in Humboldt County, CA is providing a demonstration of technology and procedures that can provide all these benefits. The Humboldt County Election Transparency Project:

This type of system holds great promise for Connecticut and any other state with optical scan voting. We will address the possibilities for reducing the costs and increasing the integrity of our elections. Today we will address the Humboldt project as a demonstration of public auditing and recounting:

Our Project aims to provide images of each counted ballot, so that any person or organization wishing to do an independent count will have access to a complete set of ballot images.

They also note as we have pointed out many times:

Voting systems such as that used in Humboldt County, which use optically scanned paper ballots, do leave an audit trail of all cast ballots. This audit trail becomes far more valuable if it is actually used to verify the count.

Here is the basic plan:
Continue reading “The Future Of Post-Election Auditing? – Faster, More Economical, Greater Confidence”

Internet Voting — Not Ready For Democracy

Verified Voting Founder, Professor David Dill, and computer experts from around the country released the: Computer Technologists’ Statement on Internet Voting. I fully endorse the statement and thank David Dill for producing and gaining support for the statement. The concluding paragraph: The internet has the potential to transform democracy in many ways, but permitting it … Continue reading “Internet Voting — Not Ready For Democracy”

Verified Voting Founder, Professor David Dill, and computer experts from around the country released the: Computer Technologists’ Statement on Internet Voting.

I fully endorse the statement and thank David Dill for producing and gaining support for the statement.

The concluding paragraph:

The internet has the potential to transform democracy in many ways, but permitting it to be used for public elections without assurance that the results are verifiably accurate is an extraordinary and unnecessary risk to democracy.

Continue reading “Internet Voting — Not Ready For Democracy”

Ten Myths In The Nutmeg State – Revised, Downward

We have been distributing our document, Ten Myths About Electronic Voting In Connecticut, since early February to citizens, election officials, and legislators. To date, exactly no (ZERO) errors or inaccuracies have been brought to our attention.

But in reviewing the Myths we find that things have changed – for the worse:
Continue reading “Ten Myths In The Nutmeg State – Revised, Downward”

Audit No Evil, Recount No Evil, Uncover No Evil

Update: The vote was close and high given that it was a referendum with reduced poll hours. The insiders’ choice won by 52% to 48%. There is no reason to believe the result is incorrect, yet with no audit there will always be a question of credibility in Connecticut referendums.

***********

Referendum: Front Page Story, Yet Paper Ballots Will Be Ignored

Business As Usual In the Nutmeg State – Another Electronic Vote Without A Post-Election Audit
Continue reading “Audit No Evil, Recount No Evil, Uncover No Evil”

Election Observer Arrested – Taken Away In Handcuffs

“The judge dismissed the case on motion of state’s evidence, because they hadn’t produced a prima faceia case,”

Update 4/16/2009: Brad Friedman has the story <read>

“The judge dismissed the case on motion of state’s evidence, because they hadn’t produced a prima faceia case,” Risner told The BRAD BLOG by phone just after the hearing. Moreover, the judge found “Nelson over-reached as he had deprived the Libertarian’s of an observer.”

Risner says the court found that Brakey’s actions had led to important improvements in the procedures implemented by the Pima County Department of Elections. The attorney also tells us that he plans to take civil action against Nelson. “We’ll probably be issuing a notice of claim that we’ll sue him for personal damages.”

Brakey was ecstatic. “We really won big,” he said today. “We didn’t even have to put up a defense” since the judge simply dismissed the county’s case after they’d heard it. He added that Nelson “really made a fool of himself” on the stand

***********Original Post:

This news video is the best way to understand the story <video>

Read the story from <The Election Defense Alliance> and <Brad Friedman>

Pima County (Tucson), Arizona’s Election Integrity advocate and expert, John Brakey was arrested last night while performing his job as an election supervisor, on behalf of both the Democratic and Libertarian parties, during a post-election hand-count audit of ballots…

The problem erupted after Brakey had noticed a number of ballot bags being counted in the post-election audit were missing their proper security seals. He began to ask questions about those bags, which eventually led to his arrest at the demand of Pima County’s Brad “Election Director Gone Wild” Nelson, a man with whom Brakey has had a number of unfortunate (for Nelson) run-ins over the years…
In one bag, instead of the signed official certification sheets, there was instead a slip of white paper with what Brakey said were “two illegible, scrawled signatures.”

Arizona vs. Connecticut – you decide:

  • Arizona is in the West
  • Connecticut Election management has been characterized as the Wild West
  • Arizona Recounts are hand counts of the paper
  • Secretary Bysiewicz recently changed Connecticut back to machine recounts based on requests from Registrars to make their jobs easier
  • In Puma Arizona they keep the ballots under video surveillance and guard
  • In many Connecticut towns the ballots are kept in vaults, rooms, or cabinets without servalence and 24×7 access by either Registrar. In some towns access is available to each member of the Registrar’s staff.
  • We have yet to hear of any observer in Connecticut being arrested

You’ll note in the KGUN video, that Brad Nelson admits the ballot bags that Brakey was concerned about were, indeed, unsealed.

“All of these bags have been under 24 hour video surveillance, as well as a deputy sherrif have been watching these bags since they’ve come in on election night. So we have protected the bags,” Nelson is quoted as saying.

Why do hand counts? Why keep the ballots under seal, with real security, and surveillance?

In the Puma race, the Democrat won on the original reported count. With the hand count incomplete, currently the Republican candidate is in the lead. Without complete integrity, no matter who is eventually declared a winner, there will be a cloud over Arizona and the office holder.

Some argue for illusion over integrity – That we would be better off without paper records so that the original count provided by election officials, touch screen machines, or lever machines would always have to be accepted and the public never disturbed by the knowledge that people make errors or do fraud with and without computers.