Post-Election Audit Finds Error of 1,114 ballots

A state election audit revealed Thursday that Richland County[, South Carolina] officials failed to count 1,114 absentee ballots when finalizing results of the Nov. 5 city and county elections.

We point to two areas where South Carolina seems to do better than Connecticut

South Carolina: 1,114 Richland County ballots not counted <read>

A state election audit revealed Thursday that Richland County officials failed to count 1,114 absentee ballots when finalizing results of the Nov. 5 city and county elections.

 Howard Jackson, county election director, said the electronic ballots came from a single voting machine used by absentee voters at the election office.

This was the first countywide election since Richland County’s botched 2012 general election, considered one of the worst in state history. At that time, precincts across the county did not have enough voting machines, leaving some voters in line for up to seven hours, and hundreds of ballots turned up uncounted days later…

Jackson said votes on a single personal electronic ballot, or PEB, were not counted. Poll workers insert a PEB into a voting machine to open and close it; it stores all the ballots cast on that machine.

“We just missed one of the PEBs,” Jackson said. “I can’t understand how that happened.”

This is similar to one type of human error that happens from time to time in Connecticut – human errors that result in inaccurate results often attributed to electronic voting. We total machines by hand, yet when more that one machine is used in a district, we could forget to include one machine or maybe just read some of the ballots in more than once, like what happened last year, as detected in the process of the post-election audit:   <read>

One municipality discovered a significant error, 151 ballots double counted because write – in votes were read into the scanner a second time . The audit discovered the error which should have be en discovered and corrected as part of the normal election closing and reporting processes.

Yet, we point to  two areas where South Carolina seems to do better than Connecticut:

First, the State found and reported the error within a few days after the election, whereas in Connecticut the State has yet to report the results of the 2012 audit or report any investigation of the other differences identified by the Nov 2012 audit and several earlier audits. From the Coalition Report:

There were many differences between machine counts and hand counts reported to the Secretary of the State by municipalities . – we can find no acceptable all o f these discrepancies either to humans or to the voting machines ] . In many cases, these discrepancies are not reasonably explained. In other cases , the explanations make no sense or contradict the data in municipalities’ reports. Whether these discrepancies are the result of human or voting machine errors is unknown

Connecticut’s latest official report, not including any investigations of differences, covered the November 2011 Election <all CT reports>

Second, South Carolina seems to take such errors quite seriously:

“If it’s possible, Richland County citizens now have even less faith in their elections,” said Eaddy Willard, county Republican chairwoman. “Tonight I am calling on Richland County leaders to finally fix the problems. Take action and do your jobs.”
The S.C. Democratic Party released this statement from chairman Jaime Harrison in response to the announcement that 1,100 absentee ballots from the most recent election in Richland County were not counted:

“Like many Richland County residents, I was shocked and frustrated to hear about the results of the South Carolina Election Commission audit. It is inexcusable and unacceptable. The voters of every county in South Carolina must be able to have full confidence in the electoral process and uphold the promise that every single vote counts. The South Carolina Democratic Party supports any and all efforts to solve these increasingly-frequent problems at the Richland County Election Commission once and for all. Leaders must ensure that voters in South Carolina can finally have confidence that their vote was counted.”

66 Districts in 46 Municipalities Selected for Post-Election Audit

 

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, assisted by volunteers from the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition randomly selected districts for the November 2013 post-election audit.

 

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, assisted by volunteers from the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition randomly selected districts for the November 2013 post-election audit.  See the Secretary’s press release for the list of districts <read>

Education “Reform” provides lessons for voting integrity

? What is more important to you? Democracy or the Education of our children?

Answer: <click>

? What is more important to you? Democracy or the Education of our children?

Answer: This is a trick question. Without an educated populace, we cannot have Democracy. Without Democracy we won’t have true, objective education.

Connecticut is engaged in “High Stakes Education Reform” at risk is a bit of our treasury and the entire future of our children and our Democracy. At the heart of choosing and succeeding is “High Stakes Testing”. At a minimum, if we cannot trust the tests, cannot trust the new or traditional educators, then all is lost.

A significant analogy for Elections and Education 

  • If we cannot trust election results or cannot trust election officials then all is lost.
  • In Connecticut election integrity is based on Paper Ballots
  • And Education Integrity is based on Paper Tests
  • Change the paper and you have changed the result
  • Both are dependent on the chain-of-custody

Yet,

  • Elections are a safer in Connecticut because of optical scanners – because the voted ballots are scanned in the view of officials from at least two parties, before they are stored.
  • Trust in Elections and Education will not be improved by computer voting or testing

A lesson for Elections from Education

Connecticut is in the midst of an eduction and education testing scandal, as summarized by the Hartford Courant <read>

Things appeared to be looking up at Betances. In 2011, only 19 percent of third-graders at the pre-K-to-3 school achieved the state’s reading goal, but in 2012, the number shot up to 74 percent, by far the most dramatic improvement by any Hartford school. Bonuses of up to $2,500 were awarded to teachers; school Principal Immacula Didier received a $10,000 bonus from the district, The Courant reported.

It wasn’t the jump in the scores that attracted the attention of state officials to this year’s reading test, it was a safeguard put into place because of a test-tampering incident at a Waterbury school in 2011. After that, the State Department of Education began checking the frequency and type of erasures on tests. This year’s survey flagged Betances with an abnormally high number of rubbed out and changed answers on the third-grade reading mastery test. Twenty-seven of 42 test booklets were over the norm for erasures, or about 64 percent. The next highest number in Hartford was 15 percent.

Further analysis found a disproportionately high number of erased answers changed from wrong to right. Investigators from the law firm of Siegel, O’Connor, O’Donnell & Beck, who also investigated the Waterbury case, followed up with interviews with teacher and students. Teachers were “very surprised” to see that certain struggling students were able to change two dozen or more answers, all or nearly all from wrong to right. One test had 31 erasures, nearly half the 64 bubble-answer questions. Some students interviewed said they didn’t believe they had made the changes they were shown in their test booklets.

A sad story for our children. Yet, the somewhat mitigating good news is that there is an effective Audit which detected the problem! We can only hope that the PBS NewsHour will run a prominent retraction of their story touting the miracle of Betances reading program.

Yet, in the additional bad news, are lessos for voting integrity:

The report says that Ms. Didier, Linda Liss-Bronstein, the school’s literacy coach and dean of professional development, and a custodian were the only school employees with keys to the secure storage closet where CMT materials were kept. The janitor said he never went into the closet. Ms. Didier and Ms. Liss-Bronstein had custody of the completed booklets and reviewed them for such things as stray lines or double answers before forwarding them to the central office, the report says. The report does not accuse them of changing answers.

What can we learn? (What will we learn?)

  • The chain-of-custody matters for all critical paper records
  • Perhaps we should guard our childrens’ tests and ballots like we guard our records in a safe deposit box or like a bank guards money
  • At least two people should be required to access critical paper records
  • All accesses should be logged and verified by a third party
  • Let us not rely on trust, let us verify and secure in order to trust
  • Keep valuable records under dual lock and key, in the custody of independent authorities
  • Consider vaults, guards, and 24×7 video surveillance

When it comes to elections we have a long way to go in protecting our ballots as demonstrated by this costly lesson.

What the Courant has not learned (or has forgotten)

On the plus side, schools around the state will be moving to computer-based testing over the next two years as the new Common Core curriculum is adopted. That will eliminate at least this kind of malfeasance.

Is this the same newspaper and Editorial Board that:

For more information and tales from Connecticut and around the country on the chain-of-custody, see: <Chain-of-custody index>

? How are ballots secured in your town, after the election? How are tests protected, before and after grading?

Speed Up Election Results – Not so fast, with another half-baked solution

UPDATED, With two additional views. And a CORRECTION.
We half agree with the Courant and the Secretary of the State. We have supported the idea, applauded the start that the Secretary took, yet there are problems with the system as proposed, and even more problems with the some of the views and ideas in the Courant’s Editorial. Yet, one half-baked manual system does not deserve a half-baked automated one to solve the problems.

We would like to see the Secretary and the Courant Editorial Board close a polling place and get the data in via smart phone, or close absentee ballots and report via laptop. We will help time them and transparently provide the video on YouTube.

We also remind readers that the Courant is one of the newspapers that led the fight to require expensive paper legal notices instead of allowing for web based notices.

The Courant published an Editorial in today’s print edition: Speed Up Election Results , the online version dated yesterday is titled Half-Baked Reporting System Keeps Election Results A Mystery <read>

We half agree with the Courant and the Secretary of the State. We have supported the idea, applauded the start that the Secretary took, yet there are problems with the system as proposed, and even more problems with the some of the views and ideas in the Courant’s Editorial.

Yet, one half-baked manual system does not deserve a half-baked automated one to solve the problems.

We also remind readers that the Courant is one of the newspapers that led the fight to require expensive paper legal notices instead of allowing for web based notices.

We see several problems with the Courant’s expectations and the system tested last year, presumably the same system tested this year, since the Secretary of the State’s web site hosts the same training as before:

  • The system expects every single Moderator and Head Moderator to input all the results on election night, that is about eight hundred individuals, many in their 70’s and beyond, expected to start election day at the polls at 5:00am, working the polls until 8:00pm and then work to close the polls, close the voting machines, count some ballots by hand, secure ballots, secure materials, and report results.
  • In a simple Municipal Election in Glastonbury, with 26 candidates, polling place Moderators have approximately 78 numbers to input, while the Absentee Ballot Moderator would have 12 times that number to input or 936.
  • In Bridgeport those numbers would be 19 candidates, 57 numbers for each polling place, and 2850 for the Absentee Moderator.
  • In Greenwich it varies by district, in District 1 it is 55 candidates and 165 numbers for the polling place, perhaps 3600 for the Absentee Moderator.
  • I would challenge the Courant Editorial Board to work for 15 straight hours, service the public, managing a team of individuals that work one day a year, and within one-half hour input those numbers.
  • To add to the challenge, the Secretary offers input via smart phone, so the entry can be performed at the polling place, if it has cell service, saving the drive to Town Hall. By the way, Moderators keep a log of incidents during the day and that has to be typed in as well.
  • If you are a central count Absentee Ballot Moderator you do not have that log to put in, you are at Town Hall, so you can surely use a laptop computer, you started the day a bit later, but in addition to entering a few hundred or thousand numbers, you have to print the optical scanner tape, which can easily use up more than the whole half-hour the Courant Editorial Board expects so that they can get the results on their schedule.
  • That is up to thirty-four individuals in a town all doing that at the same time, hopefully few would have problems with their passwords or need other help from the town or state.

Once again, we are in favor of a fully baked solution:

  • Allow towns to hire competent data entry help, to arrive fresh at town hall at 8:00pm, and type in the data under the guidance and supervision of the Moderators and Head Moderator. (In one medimu -sized town where  I have worked,  as Absentee Moderator – I read the numbers, the Head Moderator typed them into a spreadsheet, a Registrar watched him to check his input, he printed the data and the Registrar and I checked it against my hand written records and the machine tapes – we always found a couple of things to correct in the process)
  • Forget the smart phones, just  too slow for this much data.
  • Test the system in real life and set reasonable expectations for timing. Most towns should be able to get the data in by Midnight, but sometimes there will be good reasons for delays.
  • The goal should be reasonably accurate data the first time. That means double checking entry. Double checking any transcription and manual addition required (Try as we might, it is not possible to machine count write-ins and other special situations that require hand counting of ballots)

Here is the Editorial with our annotations in []

By Wednesday afternoon, official results for all of Tuesday’s local elections were still not up on the secretary of the state’s website.

This is crazy. [Perhaps, but lets consider what we would say about this editorial after reviewing it]

By contrast, Florida voters knew by 8 p.m. Tuesday all their local election results — because Florida state law says officials have to report them to the state a half-hour after polls close and update them every 45 minutes thereafter. [Florida has improved after 2000, but Connecticut has wisely opted not to have its electronic voting machines connected to phone lines or the Internet. Pretty much impossible to get the job done this quickly without an electronic connection from each scanner to some central location]

Also, Florida has early voting, and officials are required by law to count those votes and absentee ballots ahead of time so that they’re ready for posting as soon as polls close. [Counting Absentee Ballots ahead of time is not such a great idea, since it opens the same issues as reporting Presidential elections from East to West, in this case with days of advanced notice. We are in favor of early voting, yet it would be very expensive in Connecticut with our town by town election management. This is not a simple, nor an inexpensive change. Wisely Connecticut does not allow reporting of any absentee results until 8:00pm. We do not allow counting to start before 10:00am on election day, and we get it done on election day.]
[Consider other states, like California, which counts absentee ballots for weeks after elections. Somehow their voters and media have survived]

But residents of Hartford, West Hartford, Windsor, Waterbury, Tolland and a bunch of other towns and cities that rely on the secretary of the state’s website for election results couldn’t get them the day after the election. [We agree that is too long. It is not the reporting system. The current system, with all its faults works for most of the towns, much faster than that. Something else must be delaying those results. Sometimes it is better to get the right results than pressure overwhelmed officials (see Bridgeport 2010)]

In some towns, voters won’t know Thursday, either. [Once again, they should ask their local officials for an explanation. Apparently the Courant has not considered reporting on the actual reason for such delays, instead assuming its the reporting system]

Instead, curious townsfolk who clicked on those municipalities on the secretary of the state’s website (www.ct.gov/sots) saw the message “Check back later for ‘Official Elections Results’ as submitted by the town.”

This is maddening.

What’s Up With This?

In the digital age, election results should be made public very quickly, and in many states they are. But here in the Land of Steady Habits, we’re still reporting results in some places the way we’ve done it for decades. Our breakthrough technology is the fax machine. [Actually towns can also use email, now that the law requires towns to provide email to all registrars]

Some towns make up their own reporting forms rather than use the state’s, and have state troopers, who usually have better things to do, drive their results to Hartford. [As allowed by antiquated state law. We also note that forms do have to be customized for each town, and sometimes for each district, since there are different offices and numbers of candidates on the ballot]

As a consequence, Connecticut can’t get reliable results from some towns on election night, or even the next day. This drives the media nuts, of course, but more important, it’s a disservice to the public. Voters would like to see the official tally on who won and by how much. Is that too much to ask? [Once again the current system may delay results a few hours, but not even a day. I am sure most state troopers could get to Hartford in less than a couple hours]

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill shares our pain, agrees that the present system leaves much to be desired and believes she has a solution. She said her office has been developing a software program over the past 30 months that allows instantaneous reporting of election results — “just type in the numbers and hit send.” She said 40 towns field-tested the program in Tuesday’s election. It worked well in half of them and had some bugs that need to be worked out in the others. She hopes to have it in place in all towns by the 2014 elections. [We would like to see the Secretary and the Courant Editorial Board close a polling place, get the data in  via smart phone, or close absentee ballots and report via laptop. We will help time them and transparently get it up on YouTube]

Ms. Merrill’s office made more results available more quickly this year by scanning the paper forms that were faxed in and posting them on the website. Some of these were hand-written with cross-outs (see Waterford, for example), making them barely legible — more evidence that the present system is hopelessly antiquated.

Yes, Florida Does Voting Right

Ms. Merrill would do a great public service by proposing a law similar to Florida’s, requiring quick posting of at least preliminary election results. At present towns have until 6 p.m. the following day to get their results in, and many don’t make even that expansive deadline. The chance for error is magnified as numbers are transcribed once or twice, added up, faxed in and typed into the state system. The new software does the addition and requires only one input, reducing the chance for error.

Some election processes are hard to change; some local officials like things as they are. Ms. Merrill should push ahead and drag the state into at least the 20th century. [The Courant and Ms. Merrill should set reasonable expectations of the system and election officials, based on the results of tests, and then change the law, negotiating with election officials]

To understand more details, you can listen to the training and/or view a PowerPoint presentation on the Secretary of the State’s election reporting system at her web site: <view/listen>

UPDATE: 11/10/2013. A column and op-ed in the Courant today:

First, an op-ed by Karen Cortes, a conscientious(*)  registrar from Simsbury, Antiquated Systems Stall Election Results <read>

She mostly echoes our concerns, yet there are several areas where we diverge:

  • I do not agree that automation provides a total solution and that getting results immediately is desirable. No matter how well the collection system is automated, there is an need for checking and rechecking at the origin of hand count and write-in results in particular, time should be taken to make sure the check-in list counts match the total ballots counted. Electronic data entry checked well can save a few hours and some redundant work for the Secretary of the  State as well.
  • Electronic data transmission from our election machines is risky  and not a cure for errors. Connecticut wisely does not connect our machines to the Internet or phone system, to protect against viruses and attack.
  • Blindly submitting electronic results, bypasses the careful checking that the scanner was used properly and did not miss votes or double count them – that has happened in Connecticut, even over turning an election.
  • I would not hold out NJ as a good example. NJ uses DRE (touch screen) voting which in NJ are total uninhabitable and proven to miscount.
  • As for Virginia, this year they are a poster-state for blindly accepting machine results. The results from one county were blindly reported, were obviously incorrect, and may, if corrected, result in the change in a result. See <BradBlog> As for me, I will opt for taking the time for accurate date entry, and checking for reasonably accurate results in initial reports.

Also a column from Jon Lender, with views closer to our  own: Computerized Vote-Tally System Tested: Merrill Gives It C+, But Local Registrar Says It Flunked <read>

* CORRECTION: Good grief! An earlier version said ‘contentious’. We regret the error. At least we have proven the need for checking and rechecking.

Election Day Registration: Be prepared for lines and dissapointment

Insanity:
1) doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
– Albert Einstein
2) doing something different from what has been done over and over and expecting the same result. – The Land of [un]Steady Habits

Maybe not this year, but sometime soon, in a high interest election, we will have a huge turn-out for Election Day Registration, and many voters and candidates disappointed at 8:00pm.

Insanity:
1) doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
– Albert Einstein
2) doing something different from what has been done over and over and expecting the same result. – The Land of [un]Steady Habits

On Election Day, next Tuesday, Connecticut inaugurates Election Day Registration (EDR).  Election Day Registration has be successfully employed for years in several states, with increased turnout and without significant fraud. Unfortunately, we are trying our own version, expecting the same results:

  • Other states have done EDR in polling places, essentially accepting the voters word that they have not voted elsewhere, under stiff penalties for fraud after the fact. Presumably, very few would risk penalties for voting illegally – the challenge is to get voters to vote in the first place.
  • Connecticut requires them to go to a central location and for officials to actually register them on the spot. Plus if they are already registered in Connecticut, in the name of fraud protection, we call the other town and wait ten minutes for a call-back if they have previously voted. It is a time consuming process, even if there are sufficient lines to handle peak volume and the state’s central voter registration system performs under such stress.

We seem to be of two or three minds:

  • We expect the same results as other states: A 5%-8% increase in turnout.
  • Without the experience of other states: That turn-out increase comes with the work of 20% to 30% election day registrations. So we expect and prepare for a maximum of around 5%  registrations on election day.
  • We judge that very few will register on election day. We look at past experience with the Presidential Ballot, where unregistered voters could go to Town Hall and only vote for President, it a state where it usually does not make much difference. (Ignoring the huge turn-out at the last minute in 2012 in New Haven and Hartford, and the huge lines we saw then, in a considerably less time intensive process)

CTVotersCount Opinions/Warnings:

We have been against this law since we first read the versoin proposed to the legislature in 2010. We are in favor of Election Day Registration based on success and safety in other states – but not this way.

  • It will likely start slow this year, with few potential voters aware of it. For the most part, this is a low interest, low turnout election. In the long run we predict, our results and work will likely ramp up to about half the levels of other states that make it convenient – on average across the state.
  • Yet some year there will be a huge turnout, based on last minute voter excitement, a close race, perhaps coupled with party/candidate activity on Election Day. – especially in large towns with huge voter turn-over and many unregistered citizens. There is even that potential this year in New Haven and Bridgeport.
  • We will know better after this year, but a single line can handle at most 10 to 15 voters in an hour. What if 1000 voters show up in some town between 7:00 and 7:30, that would require 67 lines!!! – Assuming there were no citizens in line already at 7:00.

There is one more issue in this unproven, almost unmanageable scheme:

  • The Secretary of the States Office has procedures that, unlike polling places, those in line at 8:00pm cannot register.
  • Worse, officials have control over who and how many register: Anyone not registered by 8:00pm, according to procedures issued by the Secretary of the State cannot register.  Officials at each local EDR location can effect who that last person is – officials running the election determine in advance the number of lines, which can limit the total number of people who can register – favoring the party, expected to have fewer election day hopefuls.
  • Worse, likely a civil rights issue in statewide elections, our understanding is that the law will not be applied equally across the State. Some officials believe that people in line at 8:00 should be allowed to register and vote. Since the Secretary’s procedures are not enforceable they are presumably free to interpret the law that way.

Maybe not this year, but sometime soon, in a high interest election, we will have a huge turn-out for Election Day Registration, and many voters and candidates disappointed at 8:00pm.

Hartford: Democracy is worth voting NO on question 3. Don’t be misled.

We do not use the word “misleading” lightly. We have three problems with the latest Couranrt Editorial, in addition to the other issues we have been articulating over the the the years. As we have said many times, we have a concern, a criticism, and an alternative proposal.

No system is perfect. Let us remember, the problems come when there is a close highly contested election, where the checks and balances are critical –That is why Hartford voters should not tolerate this change.

Elections are critical. Do not vote for a single appointed registrar.

On Tuesday voters in Hartford will vote on three changes to the Charter. The third question:

Ballot Question No. 3
Shall the electors of the City of Hartford approve and adopt the revisions to chapter III. $7 pertaining to the specific duties [second sentence of $7(A)], Operational Standards [$7(B)], training an certification [$7(B)91] and appointment of the Registrars of Voters [$7(C)]?

The proposed Charter (page 7) would:

If permitted by General Statues the Registrars of Voters shall be appointed by the City Council to serve for an indefinite term.

Also it would require:

the Registrars of Voters and any deputy or permanent assistants, upon no more that one hundred and eighty (180) Days following hiring, shall participate at the next scheduled session regarding any certification program for Registrars of Voters, as set forth in the General Statues in order to obtain certification by the Secretary of the State; or in the event, there is no such program any continuing education programs offered by national organizations or associations pertaining to local election administration.

Let us consider some implications that might not be readily apparent:

  • The change would allow the partisan majority of the Hartford Town Council to appoint a single Registrar, qualified or not, at any time. Including right before, after, and between the election and certification or recanvass.
  • They could appoint any number of Registrars, one, two, three or more.
  • The current Council would likely appoint a Democrat to oversee Republican and Working Families primaries.
  • There currently is no state certification program for Registrars of Voters
  • The Registrars, Deputies, and Assistants are not required to be certified, ever. They are only required to “participate in” a program. The Charter proposal does not require Certification or even completing an entire program.

There would be every opportunity for partisan control of elections and thus Democracy by a single party bent on maintaining its control of all aspects of City government. Less oversight and less Democracy.

Why would anyone but a foe of Democracy support such a move?

Perhaps if they were [mis]led by the Hartford Courant Editorial Board into voting for this change under the false premises that the current law mandates unnecessary expenses in unneeded excess.  The Editorial Board has been spearheading this change since before the third party Registrar was first elected:

Sept 2008: Downsizing Newspaper Recommends Downsizing Registrars
Nov 2008: CT: Courant: “How Stupid Is This?” (not our words, the Courant’s)
Aug 2009: Hartford: Wasting $ As Usual (Sometimes checks and balances are worth it)
Oct 2011: Too Many Registrars? Or Too Little Thought?
Oct 2012: A Tale in two Courant Editorials
July 2013:Well intended misstep on Connecticut’s horizon?
Two or three Registrars is not a guarantee, especially in primaries:
Mar 2010: RoundUp: Registrar Error or Election Fraud? – Saving $$$ or Empowering Voters?  Further, could we expect a Registrar appointed by one party to effectively administer a competing party’s primary – or expect public trust and credibility?

And in today’s edition we have another misleading editorial: Hartford Charter Changes Worth Voting On <read>

We support these changes, and enthusiastically support a proposal to end the city’s having three registrars of voters.

An anachronistic state law says that if a third-party candidate running for registrars beats one of the major-party candidates, the major-party candidate gets to be a registrar anyway. Since 2008,when a Working Families candidate defeated a Republican, the city has wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on three registrars and deputies.

The charter changes would allow the city to appoint “one or more” trained, nonpartisan registrars. It would require a small change in state law, which hopefully will be forthcoming.

We do not use the word “misleading” lightly. We have three problems with this Editorial, in addition to the other issues we have been articulating with the proposal:

  • It is misleading to say appoint ‘trained’ Registrars because a) The proposal clearly states that the appointments can occur before any training. b) There is no state certified training program. and c) It depends on what you mean by ‘trained’, as the law only requires participation in training.
  • Since multiple Registrars can still be appointed, there is no guarantee that the Courant’s touting of savings by having only one would be realized. And even one can spend as freely as three, especially with no counter balance.
  • Finally, calling for a non-partisan Registrar, does not make it so, especially if, that person is appointed by a partisan body.

As we have said many times, we have a concern, a criticism, and an alternative proposal:

Concern: Having three registrars in Hartford has a purpose and is reasonable, and less risky than the Charter proposal.

Why have two registrars? It is a system of checks and balances. Each can watch the other and watch out for the interests of their party.

But, what about Hartford with a weak Republican Party and a substantial Working Families Party? For the same reasons most towns have a Republican and a Democratic Registrar, under the current system, Hartford needs a Democratic and a Working Families Registrar.

Why then have three, if the Republicans are a non-factor in Hartford? Because Republicans are a factor in Connecticut.

We had a close race for Governor in 2010. It all came down to Bridgeport. What if it all came down to Hartford and there was no Republican Registrar – who would trust the result, everyone would blame the Registrars, if there were only the Democrat and Working Families.

The Charter proposal would have one registrar, appointed by a Council Majority. Good grief! Unlike the position of Town Clerk – there are no official qualifications for Registrar – no Certification of Registrars in Connecticut.

Who would trust an election run by a single partisan appointed official?

Criticism of the Argument for the Costs of Three

Hartford Can Be Creative! Beyond Hartford there are 168 towns with two elected registrars, each! Many are very part-time. They fit the registrar and staff hours to the job to be accomplished.

Hartford can do the same thing. If it takes two full time registrars, two full time deputies, and some Assistants, then make the Registrars part-time, say 2/3s. If you still want three full time Deputies, then cut the number of Assistants and make the Deputies salaries half way between Deputies and Assistants.

Unfortunately, with only one appointed registrar, creativity could result in higher costs!

Alternative: Regionalize, Professionalize, Economize

The current system is not perfect – no system is! What would we recommend to the State?

Do for elections what we have done for Probate, for the same reasons and benefits – Regionalize, Professionalize, Economize. Consider best practices from other states.

Regional, professional, election administrators and staff. Not fifty regions like Probate. Perhaps 5-7 voting regions in each Congressional District. You want each region big enough to support at least five to seven full time staff, creating a career path of experienced deputies.

There is no perfect system. I would like to see a Blue Ribbon Commission formed to study best practices in other states. Perhaps municipalities should still elect UNPAID registrars and have UNPAID Election Boards that guide and audit the work of professional regional election administrators.

Let us remember, the problems come when there is a close highly contested election, where the checks and balances are critical –That is why Hartford voters should not tolerate this change.

Elections are critical. Do not vote for a single appointed registrar.

Three years later, Denise Merrill, tests same line crossed by Susan Bysiewicz

Three years ago, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, got in hot water for using state resources for a political database and newsletter. Now current Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill may have crossed that same line. The circumstances are slightly different but, at least at this point, there seems little difference and distinction.
UPDATE 10/15 – Merrill holds press conference, ends newsletter.

Three years ago, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, got in hot water for using state resources for a political database and newsletter. Now current Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill may have crossed that same line. The circumstances are slightly different but, at least at this point, there seems little difference and distinction.

Jon Lender reports in the Hartford Courant: Merrill Uses State Office To Send Newsletter To Democratic Activists <read>

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill has been using her taxpayer-funded office to maintain a computerized list of names and email addresses of thousands of Democratic activists and campaign contributors — to whom she sends a monthly newsletter touting her accomplishments.

Her actions are reminiscent of widely condemned practices by her predecessor in the office, Susan Bysiewicz. Bysiewicz’s campaign for state attorney general failed in 2010 amid a scandal over a politically tinged “constituent database” — which Bysiewicz maintained in her office and utilized to send a similar newsletter of her own…

Merrill, who is up for re-election next year although she hasn’t declared her candidacy, says her newsletter is intended to keep her constituents informed.

But the list of recipients, obtained by the Courant through a public-records request, is densely packed with names of political donors and members of the state’s Democratic establishment — the kind of people a candidate wants to stay in touch with in order to win renomination and to raise campaign funds.

Reminiscent of three years ago, the main operative is a Chief of Staff:

Most of the names were sent to Merrill’s office in April from the personal email account of Shannon Wegele, Merrill’s $97,850-a-year chief of staff. Wegele assisted with Merrill’s 2010 campaign, and previously had been an aide on her staff in the state legislature, where Merrill served as House majority leader..

Merrill, who is typically available to the press, declined to talk to The Courant Friday and instead responded to questions in a written statement relayed through Harris. As to the origin of the list, Merrill’s statement said:

“The initial list of our e-newsletter recipients includes people I have known personally for a long time throughout my career in public service. Since then we have also added other groups of people to the list as well, people of varying political affiliations who have been involved in programs we have run so far in my term as Secretary of the State. As we continue to build the list I’m sure it will reflect the political and geographical diversity of those interested in the mission of this office.”

UPDATE 10/15:

Merrill holds press conference, ends newsletter: CTNewsJunkie: Merrill Ends Controversial Newsletter, Joins Republicans In Calling For Audit <read>

Cognitive Dissonance? Not in Connecticut when it comes to the Internet

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel “disequilibrium”: frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc – Wikipedia

The state fails at protecting data, legislators to get lesson in Internet security, N.I.S.T experts say unsafe the Internet is not safe for voting, the N.S.A. and others can look at practically anything, yet local registrars, the Secretary of the State, and the State Military Department can protect Internet voting by Legislative decree.

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel “disequilibrium”: frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc – Wikipedia

The state fails at protecting data, legislators to get lesson in Internet security, N.I.S.T experts say unsafe the Internet is not safe for voting, the N.S.A. and others can look at practically anything, yet local registrars, the Secretary of the State, and the State Military Department can protect Internet voting by Legislative decree.

As CTVotersCount readers know, the Legislature passed Internet voting over the objections of the Secretary of the State. Choosing not to define it but to leave it up the Secretary and Military Department to define a secure way to accomplish it. Despite the concerns of virtually every Computer Scientist and experts from the National Institute of Standards. Who will implement the actual voting? 169 local municipalities, many with (very) part-time registrars? The Secretary of the State with the help of the State IT function?  Two more interesting events this week:

The Motor Vehicle Department inadvertently released the names of job applicants on its web site, making hacking into their computers unnecessary. Courant:  DMV Snafu Posts 400 Job Applicants’ Personal Info On State Website <read>

The state Department of Motor Vehicles’ commissioner has sent individual letters of apology to about 400 job applicants whose names, home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and exam scores were posted on the DMV’s official website by mistake…

The DMV had intended to post a job announcement on its website about 1 p.m. on Aug. 27 for the position of “Information Technology Analyst 2.” But the following morning, someone from the DMV’s human resources unit discovered that instead of the job-vacancy posting, “a file with a spreadsheet containing the names and other information of candidates who had passed the examination for this title had been posted,” [Commissioner Melody A.] Currey said in the letter.

Wednesday at 1:00pm, in the Legislative Office Building: State Capitol Police Dept.: Internet Safety for Legislators & Staff. Apparently consisting of:

An “Internet Safety” training program available to all legislators and legislative employees. This comprehensive program is designed to heighten awareness on protecting yourself and your family from internet and technology crimes.

Sounds like a good idea. But would a similar training be available or even feasible for military and their dependents eligible for Internet voting, across the counter, the world, under the sea, and in combat situations?  Let alone election officials in 169 towns, if they become responsible for Internet voting?

For more read some of your past posts on Internet Voting or Internet Security

 

A Nation of Laws, not Gotya’s

One court so far has ruled in favor of ballot access for one minor party in one town, using common sense to override a detail in the law. In this case, a good decision. Hopefully extended to all the similar situations in Connecticut this year. Yet, to obeyed precisely in the future.

One court so far has ruled in favor of ballot access for one minor party in one town, using common sense to override a detail in the law: Ruling Gives Boost To Minor-Party Candidates <read>

Third-party political candidates throughout the state are cheering a decision by a Superior Court judge to keep a minor party in Westport on the November ballot, saying the ruling sets a precedent for other towns where candidates have been knocked off ballots because of filing technicalities.

The order by Stamford Superior Judge Kenneth Povodator to reinstate “Save Westport Now” will likely mean third-party candidates in at least a dozen cities and towns – including Middletown and East Hampton – will remain on November ballots…

[Two other minor party chairs] said they filed their endorsement paperwork as they had in previous years. But this time they were informed by town clerks that their endorsement certificates lacked signatures. That’s because of a 2011 amendment to state election laws requiring third-party

candidates to personally sign their endorsement documents – a requirement not asked of Democrats and Republicans.

Third-party candidates were also informed by town clerks that it was too late to remedy the problem, leaving them no choice but to run as write-ins.

The touted intention of the law was to make sure that third-party endorsed candidates actually accepted endorsements – a reasonable idea for cross-endorsements, not necessarily reasonable otherwise. Reasonable or not, it looks biased against third-parties, in favor of major parties. Fairer would have been a similar requirement for all candidates for all parties. Normally, all laws should be followed and enforced. Selective enforcement should be especially avoided.

The law went into effect in 2011 but was not enforced until this year. Apparently many town clerks did not realize the change, worse neither did third parties. Sometimes the law is ambiguous and we turn to courts to resolve that ambiguity. This time the law is clear, yet more of a gotya’ than a service to democracy when those it apply to, and are charged with enforcing it are generally unaware of the requirement.

In this case, a good decision. Hopefully extended to all the similar situations in Connecticut this year. Yet, to obeyed precisely in the future.

What do voters most want to know from election webs and brochures?

?How do I register? How do I vote absentee? How do I vote? The answer might surprise you.

? How do I register? How do I vote absentee? How do I vote?  The answer might surprise you.

Usage experts have surveyed the real experts – voters – to see what they want in election office brochures. The most desired information matched the result from their study last year of what information voters most desired from election office web sites.

What makes elections information helpful to voters? <read>

Whitney Quesenbery for Civic Designing

Every election department (and many advocacy groups) create flyers and small booklets to help voters learn about elections. But when we looked for guidelines for good communication with voters, we found very little. There were some political science and social psychology experiments that measured the impact of get-out-the-vote campaigns, but there was little about what questions voters have, and how to answer those questions well.

As a companion to the research on county election websites, we did a study of how new voters used election information booklets.

We recruited people who had voted for the first time in the 2008 election or later. Our participants were young people, recently naturalized citizens, and people with lower literacy. As new voters, we hoped that they would remember their first experiences clearly and would still have questions about elections.

We worked with a selection of voter education materials that we thought were pretty good: clearly written, attractively designed, with good information…

We asked our participants to choose two of them to read, marking any sections they thought were particularly good or particularly confusing. And then we talked about what they read.

They had many of the same questions as the participants in the web site study:

  • what’s on the ballot
  • where do I go vote
  • how do I get an absentee ballot

Many other questions were about the basic mechanics of voting, from eligibility and ID requirements, to finding their polling place, to the details of how to mark their ballot.

An ideal guide helps voters plan and act

When we sorted out all the data, we weren’t surprised to find that the overriding concern was being able to act on the information. That fits the definition of plain language: information voters can find, understand, and use.

These less experienced voters wanted specific instructions that would let them vote with confidence. For example, they weren’t sure how long your voter registration “lasts” or even that they might have options for voting, not only on Election Day, but in early voting or by mail. They liked the confirmation and reassurance of seeing information they already knew…