CTVotersCount.org

Big Bird and Charlie Rose know what the CT Legislature does not!

See Charlie Rose interview Dr. Barbara Simons, co-auther of Broken Ballots. <view >

Big Bird and Charlie Rose now know that Internet voting, email voting, Virgina elections, and inadequately audited elections – do not merit our trust.

See Charlie Rose interview Dr. Barbara Simons, co-auther of Broken Ballots. <view >

Big Bird and Charlie Rose now know that Internet voting, email voting, Virgina elections, and inadequately audited elections – do not merit our trust.

Unfortunately the Connecticut Legislature completely trusts the internet with our votes.

In 2011 the Legislature was about to pass online voting despite the science, ignoring our testimony. Fortunately, they stopped, but only after the Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill convinced them to only require a report on online voting, resulting in a symposium with nationally know computer scientists and a former sports reporter and team mascot Secretary of State from West Virginia.

In 2012, we could have told them that email voting over the internet was even more dangerous, but there were not public hearings – they stuffed email voting into a campaign finance reform bill. Passed by both Houses, we warned the Governor about email voting and the unconstitutional provisions of the bill, claiming voters could waive our right to a secret vote. The Governor vetoed the bill, partially because of email voting.

Perhaps our Legislature will understand this clip from Charlie Rose,

Registrars trade complaints, official and unofficial

Is it voter suppression? Laziness? or Trumped up conflict? In any case, it does not serve voters and democracy.

It is hard to argue for the current system when these conflicts breakout, even harder to argue for the election of a single partisan registrar in each municipality.

West Hartford registrars are trading complaints, officially with the State Elections Enforcement Commission, and in the newspaper: State Investigating Complaint By West Hartford Democratic Registrar – Alleges Misconduct By GOP Registrar <read>

The state elections enforcement commission is investigating a complaint filed by the town’s Democratic registrar of voters that alleges misconduct by the Republican registrar, according to Joshua Foley, staff attorney and spokesman for the commission.

In her Sept. 10 complaint, Carolyn Thornberry claims that Eleanor Brazell violated state laws by not providing state-mandated supervised voting at nursing homes, specifically St. Mary Home, West Hartford Health and Rehabilitation and Atria Hamilton Heights…

State law requires that in “institutions” — including residential care homes, health care facilities for the handicapped, and nursing homes — where voters have difficulty getting to polling places,

a Democratic and a Republican registrar, or moderators from both parties, must supervise while voters fill out their absentee ballots. The ballots must also be collected at a designated time, according to state law.

The process allows a group to vote in one location at one time, according to Av Harris, spokesman for the secretary of the state, and eliminates the need for the voters to mail their ballots to the town clerk.

“This situation is serious … your continued recalcitrance has cost several elderly their right to vote,” Thornberry wrote. “In the professional work of a Registrar of Voters, there is nothing worse.”

In her complaint, Thornberry said that she found out during her first year as Democratic registrar that supervised balloting was arranged at certain institutions in town, but not at St. Mary Home or West Hartford Health and Rehabilitation.

State statutes require registrars to supervise balloting at institutions if more than 20 residents are electors or, for institutions with fewer than 20 electors, if an administrator from the institution makes a timely written request, according to the complaint…

State law requires that in “institutions” — including residential care homes, health care facilities for the handicapped, and nursing homes — where voters have difficulty getting to polling places,

a Democratic and a Republican registrar, or moderators from both parties, must supervise while voters fill out their absentee ballots. The ballots must also be collected at a designated time, according to state law.

The process allows a group to vote in one location at one time, according to Av Harris, spokesman for the secretary of the state, and eliminates the need for the voters to mail their ballots to the town clerk.

“This situation is serious … your continued recalcitrance has cost several elderly their right to vote,” Thornberry wrote. “In the professional work of a Registrar of Voters, there is nothing worse.”

In her complaint, Thornberry said that she found out during her first year as Democratic registrar that supervised balloting was arranged at certain institutions in town, but not at St. Mary Home or West Hartford Health and Rehabilitation.

State statutes require registrars to supervise balloting at institutions if more than 20 residents are electors or, for institutions with fewer than 20 electors, if an administrator from the institution makes a timely written request, according to the complaint.

The deputy registrars said they were told by Brazell and the former Democratic registrar that supervised polling wasn’t required at the facilities because they were designated polling places, Thornberry wrote.

The law does not distinguish between institutions that are used as polling places and those that are not.

Thornberry claims that administrators at St. Mary Home “shared their frustration about ‘begging’ the Office of the Registrar in past years to schedule supervised balloting and the registrars’ refusal to do so.”

Thornberry’s letter to the state elections commission says “it has been a struggle to assure effective operations and legal compliance due to the conduct of” Brazell.

“While we do differ in personality and work style, my only concern is the continuing pattern of irregularities and resistance to correction and change,” Thornberry wrote. “This is not a partisan issue.”

Thornberry wrote that Brazell failed to train election workers as required by law, did not re-certify moderators once their certifications had lapsed, and would change voter information without following the proper procedures.

Thornberry also also claimed that Brazell removed voters from the registry when mailers informing them of a change in polling places were sent back to the office marked undelivered.

In an email to town officials, town council members, the secretary of the state’s staff attorney and others dated Aug. 2 — more than a month before Thornberry filed her formal complaint — Brazell depicted a work environment full of threats and door-slamming, and said Thornberry’s “accusations are all lies.”

“She threatens me bullies me & the folks in the front office causing 2 of them to leave due to her bullying & a hostile work environment. She has made a mess of this office,” Brazell wrote in the email. “How long is the Town going to ignore her behavior? She is very unprofessional. I did not start this nonsense.”

Is it voter suppression? Laziness? or Trumped up conflict? In any case, it does not serve voters and democracy.

In our experience most registrars maintain good working relationships with their counterparts from opposing parties. Some form an effective, cordial team. Sometimes there is a political undercurrent which can occasionally get out of hand, possibly aggravated by genuine differences, or personality conflicts. This situation is not unique, see:
WFSB: What It Takes To Be A Registrar – Politics Play Out In Registrar’s Office
Hartford Registrars: Fighting Disrupts City Office
Bridgeport Registrars: Dustup, Charges, Investigation
Registrar Nomination: Surprise Change Results In Dustup
New Registrar and Two Databases add to campaign dustup

It is hard to argue for the current system when these conflicts breakout, even harder to argue for the election of a single partisan registrar in each municipality. We say “Do For Elections What We Have Done For Probate”

Roundup – VotER fraud vs. VotING fraud

Several states continue to argue about voter ID laws allegedly intended to prevent fraud by individual voters, in the face of little evidence of such fraud. Meanwhile the documented fraud which occurs regularly around the country is multiple vote absentee vote fraud. And now evidence of massive voter registration fraud.

Several states continue to argue about voter ID laws allegedly intended to prevent fraud by individual voters, in the face of little evidence of such fraud, with the most noted, Pennsylvania Deadline nears on judge’s Pa. voter ID law ruling <read>

Pennsylvania’s new law is among the toughest in the nation.

It is a signature accomplishment of Republicans in control of Pennsylvania state government who say they fear election fraud. But it is an emotional target for Democrats who call it a Jim Crow-style scheme to make it harder for their party’s traditional voters, including young adults and minorities, who might not carry the right kind of ID or know about the law.

It was already a political lightning rod when a top state Republican lawmaker boasted to a GOP dinner in June that the ID requirement “is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.”

The high court told Simpson that he should stop the law from taking effect in this year’s election if he finds the state has not met the law’s promise of providing easy access to a photo ID or if he believes it will prevent any registered voter from casting a ballot.

The injunction Simpson was considering revolves around the portion of the law that allows a voter without valid photo ID at the polls to cast a provisional ballot. It would effectively excuse those voters from having to get a valid photo ID and show it to county election officials within six days after the election to ensure their ballot will count. Instead, they might be required to submit a signed declaration to the county.

Last week, Simpson heard testimony about the state’s ongoing efforts to remove bureaucratic barriers for people to get a valid photo ID. He also heard about long lines and ill-informed clerks at driver’s license centers and identification requirements that made it harder for some registered voters to get a state-issued photo ID.

Similar new laws are being more or less contested in several states including Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Tennessee

And in Ohio the issue of disqualifying votes when voters are given the wrong ballot by officials, Slate: Wrong Number – The crucial Ohio voting battle you haven’t heard about <read>

At issue are potentially thousands of Ohio ballots that the state will not count solely because of poll worker error. Here’s the problem: A number of the state’s polling places, especially in cities, cover more than one voting precinct, and in order to cast a valid vote, a voter has to be given the correct precinct ballot. Poll workers, however, often hand voters the wrong precinct ballot mistakenly. In earlier litigation involving a disputed 2010 juvenile judge race in Hamilton County, Ohio, a poll worker testified to sending a voter whose address started with the numbers “798” to vote in the precinct for voters with odd-numbered addresses because the poll worker believed “798” was an odd number. This “right church, wrong pew” problem with precinct ballots was a big problem in 2008, when over 14,000 such ballots were cast.

Meanwhile the documented fraud which occurs regularly around the country is multiple vote absentee vote fraud. Here is a recent case from N.J. <read>

The Mercer County jury found that Fernandez, who works for the Essex County Department of Economic Development, fraudulently tampered with documentation for absentee ballots in Ruiz’s Nov. 6, 2007 general election, submitting ballots on behalf of voters who never received the ballots or had an opportunity to cast their votes.

Fernandez was charged in 2009 along with several other defendants, including Ruiz’s husband, Essex County Freeholder Samuel Gonzalez. As a result, Gonzalez agreed to forfeit his seat on the freeholder board and his job as an aide to a Newark city councilman, and he was admitted into the Pre-Trial Intervention Program. Four other defendants previously pleaded guilty

And now, more and more evidence of actual voter registration fraud, of the type ACORN was alleged to do in 2008 Nationwide GOP Voter Registration Fraud Scandal Widens, Becomes Criminal Matter in Florida <read>

A major element of the Republican National Committee’s overall attempt to game the 2012 elections by trying to affect who gets to vote and who does not, has just been stopped dead in its tracks.

Along with it, a criminal election fraud complaint has now reportedly been filed with law enforcement in the state of Florida against a Republican firm, owned by a paid Mitt Romney consultant, which was hired by the GOP to carry out partisan voter registration operations in at least five battleground states.

Millions of dollars were spent on the aborted effort by the GOP over the last two months — their largest single expenditure in several of the states where the scheme was in full tilt — to seek out Romney supporters only, and sign them up to vote.

The strategy resulted in (or included) fraudulent registration forms collected by the firm and then submitted in Florida by the state GOP with voter addresses, signatures and party affiliations changed. Election officials in the state have told The BRAD BLOG that they fear the scheme could result in the disenfranchisement of a still-unknown number of otherwise legal voters, and they are taking extraordinary measures to try and contain the potential damage as they attempt to work through more than 45,000 new and updated registrations submitted by the GOP and verify their legitimacy.

Issues with NPV vs. a strategy of overwhelm

Around this time in the presidential election cycle we see a variety of articles touting benefits of the National Popular Vote Agreement vs. the Electoral College for determining the president. One of the latest is a piece in the Stamford Patch pointing to Rep Fox’s support of the Agreement, largely quoting Ryan O’Donnell, a lobbyist for NationalPopularVote.org.

I suggest you read the Patch article along with the comments to get a taste of NPV.org’s arguments, relevant, irrelevant, and questionable and their apparent strategy of overwhelm. Often when one of these articles appears, I post a comment to articulate what they are not telling you, the risk of the National Popular Vote Agreement. Much like DDT the issue is not the touted benefits, even if overblown. The issue is the potential harmful consequences.

The debate over the National Popular Vote reminds us of the debate about the pesticide DDT so many years ago. DDT has many benefits to help farmers feed the world, some perhaps overblown, but there was a problem. DDT could kill people and definitely animals, endangering the American Eagle, the very symbol of our nation.

National Popular Vote‘s strategy seems to be to overwhelm with facts and arguments, relevant, irrelevant, and questionable. If you are patient, you will see Rep Fox’s picture popup as an endorser on their home page. If you are really patient you can read there 894 page version of what their explanation page calls a 630 page book. While many in our Connecticut Legislature are correctly concerned with highly financed legislation endorsed by ALEC, we note that two of the endorsers on the forward of the book tout their association with ALEC: Laura Braud, Minnesota Public Sector Chair, and Ray Haynes, Past National Chair. Our understanding is that NPV.org and SupportPopularVote.com are largely funded by two other book endorsers, B. Thomas Golisano and John R. Koza.

I suggest you hold the book for later and read the Patch article along with the comments to get a taste of their arguments, relevant, irrelevant, and questionable and their apparent strategy of overwhelm. Often when one of these articles appears, I post a comment to articulate what they are not telling you, the risk of the National Popular Vote Agreement. Much like DDT the issue is not the touted benefits, even if overblown. The issue is the potential harmful consequences. Here is what I could fit into the comment limit:

What often appears simple is not. The Compact being proposed would get around the requirement for a constitutional amendment. It would cobble the popular vote onto a system designed for the Electoral College.

While I understand the good arguments for the national popular vote and would support it, except there are some extreme risks to the Compact which attempts to force fit it onto our inaccurate state by state voting system.

There is no official national popular vote number complied and certified nationally that can be used to officially and accurately determine the winner in any reasonably close election. (The unaudited Certificate of Ascertainments are available only after electors must be chosen and vote)

There is no national recount available for close elections to establish an accurate number. Only in some individual states with close numbers in those states would there ever be a recount.

Currently the Electoral College limits the damage to states with close votes. With the national popular vote errors, voter suppression, and fraud in all states would count against the national totals.

For example: The inaccuracies in Bridgeport in 2010 did not change the winner here in the Governors race and would not have been enough to change the Electoral College, but would have counted against a popular vote.

I usually limit myself to one comment per article. Not so with NPV.org supporters. Currently there are 32 comments, with 27 of them by a single NPV supporter, with the pseudonym ‘toto’. Like the 880 page book, ‘toto’s strategy seems to be an attempt to overwhelm with volume, some irrelevant facts, and distortions. One of the other commenters, DJ McAneny asked a good question, so I responded:

@DJ,

I would be in favor of a National Popular Vote, but with several prerequisites. At a general level, stronger election integrity laws, national uniformity, enforceable and enforced laws in place.

Stronger laws would include voter created paper ballots, strong post-election audits, ballot security, and national recounts. There would need to be an equal franchise from state to state, uniform early voting, registration, and absentee voting provisions. All these things in a way that we could trust enforcement, integrity, and accuracy. Finally it would take a great improvement/revision of the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act, which cause problems and limit integrity of the selection of electors that we have seen in 1876 and 2000.

Perhaps I should say more on such articles and adopt a strategy of articulating the flaws in ‘toto’s voluminous arguments, yet I believe the sheer volume speaks louder than than anything, other than the obvious fact that ‘toto’ and his or her frequent alter ego ‘mvymvy’ are not willing to sign their comments. They know who they are, everyone knows who I am. I stand by my comments.

PS: For those interested in a more detailed version of the risks of the National Popular Vote Agreement, review my slides from a presentation as part of a panel on the Agreement, delivered this spring at the Election Verification Network annual conference, Verification and Integrity Concerns with the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote an Interstate Compact <Slides>

USA Today: Electronic voting – The Real Threat

A USAToday Editorial, and an opposing view: Editorial: Electronic voting is the real threat to elections <read>

Imagine how easy voting would be if Americans could cast ballots the same way they buy songs from iTunes or punch in a PIN code to check out at the grocery store: You could click on a candidate from a home computer or use a touch screen device at the local polling place.

It’s not entirely a fantasy. In many states, some voters can already do both. The process is seductively simple, but it’s also shockingly vulnerable to problems from software failure to malicious hacking. While state lawmakers burn enormous energy in a partisan fight over in-person vote fraud, which is virtually nonexistent, they’re largely ignoring far likelier ways votes can be lost, stolen or changed.

How? Sometimes, technology or the humans running it simply fail

The article goes on to list some of the failures of electronic voting, many of which have been covered at CTVotersCount.

Fortunately our Legislature has not wasted time on raising Connecticut’s adequate voter I.D. law to the level of voter suppression. Unfortunately, the Legislature has continued to ignore science, experience, and the Constitutional requirement for preserving the secret vote – this spring they voted for email voting, in a provision inserted in a unrelated bill, without public hearings, Governor vetoes bill with email/fax voting “rat”

The opposing view from Bob Carey, Opposing view: Paper voting system is broken <read>

Carey is not a scientist. For years he has been advocating for more effective military voting, he knows much progress has been made to make paper voting effective for military and overseas voters, and that the military has been negligent in following the law to provide an officer to assist military votes at each base. He should also know how vulnerable even the defense department networks remain. And local control of elections requires using the regular internet for voting, managed by officials, largely no more technical than Mr. Carey.

Candiate qualifies to run on three lines for registrar – Case made for third registrar in Hartford

Connecticut has 169 towns with a Democratic and a Republican registrar. If anyone else runs and comes in 1st or 2nd then there are three (or even four registrars). Currently Hartford has three registrars. For several years we have been articulating the reasons this makes sense, how it can be done without additional cost, and the potential cure of “Doing for Elections what we have done for Probate”.

Two recent news items are relevant. A defense of three registrars in Hartford by Ed Vargas. And candidate Doug Lary running on three 3rd party lines for registrar Windham/Willimantic.

From the Norwich Bulletin <read>

“All three of my nominating petitions have now been examined and approved,” Lary said. “Each letter states that I am therefore qualified to appear on the ballot for the office under the party designation.”

Lary has been collecting signatures for months. He was required to collect 49 signatures supporting his candidacy, or 1 percent of the total number of votes for the office of registrar in the 2010 election in Windham. Larry collected 122 signatures to run unaffiliated. He collected another 89 for the Green Party petition, and 83 for local The Bottom Line party.

Lary, however, is unsure how his name will appear on the ballot. That is up to Town Clerk Patricia Spruance. Spruance must present a ballot to the Secretary of the State’s office no later than Oct. 26…

For Lary, the biggest challenge is explaining to voters how the registrars office works.

“I attended ECSU’s Student Activity Day Sept. 6 and was involved with the civic engagement efforts there,” Lary said. “At my table I answered questions on registration issues for students, and helped several students change their registration or register for the first time in Windham. As the same form is used all across Connecticut, I was able to provided advice and forms to many students to adjust their registration in other towns.”

A third registrar can protect the interests of the voters beyond the two major parties, without significant budget increases. Ed Vargas echos our sentiments and provides some additional ways that costs could be saved in Hartford by listening to a third voice in a letter to the Courant appearing in today’s printed edition <read>

But blaming the registrars’ department for Hartford’s financial problems does a great disservice to voters. The truth is that political patronage and waste are to blame, and we can cut costs without jeopardizing fair elections. As a candidate for state representative in Hartford, I agree with Working Families Party Registrar Urania Petit and the common-sense reductions in spending she has fought for. For example, she’s suggested hiring one person to supervise the vote tabulator, instead of four, saving $10,800 each election, and she’s proposed pay cuts for the registrars. With these proposals, there should be no threat of November’s elections not being held. Any possibility of not holding an election as proposed by the Democratic and Republican registrars is an act of voter suppression. Similarly, having a single registrar could lead to voter suppression. The reason Connecticut’s statute demands multiple registrars in each town is to protect everyone’s voting rights, even those who are outside the mainstream political parties.

Electronic Voting Debate Continues – Defying Science and History

Computer Scientists say safe Internet voting is impossible, unless unanticipated theoretical discoveries are made.

The World is not round*, leeches are not medically useful, electronic only voting and Internet voting cannot be made safe for the foreseeable future.

Several articles continue the debate on electronic voting. On one side we have Science and the history of electronic voting problems, Internet voting failures, and the risk of computers and the internet. On the other side those that apparently know little of Science who maintain faith that Scientists can solve any problem the uninformed choose.

From the Wall Street Journal: Decade-Old E-Voting ‘Wars’ Continue into Presidential Election <read>

From the Maryland Reporter: Election voting on the Internet ‘inevitable,’ experts say <read>
We note no computer scientists in the list of ‘experts’. The closest we find are perhaps political “scientists”.

Computer Scientists say safe Internet voting is impossible, unless unanticipated theoretical discoveries are made.

The World is not round*, leeches are not medically useful, electronic only voting and Internet voting cannot be made safe for the foreseeable future.

* Trick answer. It is much closer to round than flat.

Supreme Court to decide ballot layout and sovereign immunity

I am not a lawyer, however: The law reads like the Secretary of the State is correct in interpreting the law. But it will be a tough precedent if the court accepts the sovereign immunity argument – I would think that would make it harder to sue over any election issue, including when the Secretary has declared an election winner. UPDATED

Courant: Ballot-Line Fight Goes To Supreme Court Wednesday <read>

The state Supreme Court, moving swiftly, will hear oral arguments Wednesday on whether Republicans should replace Democrats at the top of the ballot in November.

In a lawsuit that it filed just last month, the state Republican Party argued that it should receive the top ballot line after the complicated results of the 2010 gubernatorial election…

Although Democrat Dannel P. Malloy won the governor’s race in 2010, he did it with a combination of votes from both the Democratic Party and the union-backed Working Families Party. In the tight race, Republican Tom Foley captured more votes on the Republican line than Malloy did on the Democratic line. With that result, Republicans say that their party should get the top line because they received more votes than any other party.

The GOP sued Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, who ruled that the Democrats should keep the top line on the 2012 ballot. Republicans had questioned an original decision by Merrill, a longtime Democrat, to place the Democrats on the top line for the 2011 municipal elections.

But Merrill says the precise wording of the law means that the party of the candidate with the most votes overall — Malloy and the Democrats, in this case — should go on top…

But the state attorney general’s office, arguing on behalf of Merrill, says in a 37-page legal brief that the case should be dismissed because Merrill acted within her legal boundaries. In addition, attorneys are invoking the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which prevents some lawsuits from being filed against the state.

Here is the text of the Connecticut law, New York’s law might not be identical:

Sec. 9-249a. Order of parties on the ballot label. (a) The names of the parties shall be arranged on the machines in the following order:

(1) The party whose candidate for Governor polled the highest number of votes in the last-preceding election; …

Earlier coverage <read>

Update: 9/12/2012 CTMirror: Both sides cite history in election ballot order battle <read>

Before the Supreme Court, the thicket gets more dense, with precedent and changes in the law, with deadlines approaching!

Update 9/2/2012: Court rules, Republicans get top line <verdict>

We still disagree with the Courant on reforming the office of registrar

The comprehensive solution is to “Do for Elections what we have done for Probate“. Consolidation, Professionalization, and Regionalization. Not a panacea, but in our opinion a prerequisite. And change it in the Legislature by following the requirements of State law.

New editorial on old subject: Hartford Doesn’t Need Three Registrars – A Crazy Waste: One for each party is too costly <read>

The election must be held, of course, and the registrars must try harder to find the money in their stash to pay for it. At the same time, Hartford must quick-step down the path of reforming this bureaucratic colossus.

There are three registrars: a Democratic registrar and staff, a Republican registrar and staff, and a Working Families Party registrar and staff. When the Working Families registrar position was created, there were fewer members of that party registered to vote than there are members of a baseball team.

Requiring a registrar for such a party is a needless waste. Hartford is broke. Mayor Pedro Segarra recently announced an additional 12 layoffs at a time when the city’s non-school, non-public safety, non-registrar payroll is down to bare bones.

Hartford needs only one registrar. It should be a nonpartisan, professional, appointed position.

The city charter revision commission now empaneled should study the issue and include a provision on how best to reform the registrars’ office in its report next January.

Here is where the Courant Editorial Board gets it wrong, in our opinion:

It would be illegal for any town in Connecticut to disregard the State law, with regard to how and how many registrars are elected or appointed. Of what value would an item in a local Charter Revision Commission Report be?
The number of registered voters in a party is not the only measure of importance. Our analysis of the 2011 municipal election shows six Democratic Party candidates receiving an average of 3,732 votes, four Working Families Party candidates receiving and average of 2,036 votes, and the Republican Party with three candidates averaging just 966 votes.
In the past the Courant has advocated for a single registrar. That is and was a flawed idea, which would leave a risky system subject to political skulduggery: Downsizing Newspaper Recommends Downsizing Registrars <read> And more recently they seem to at least have understood the law, suggesting it was up the the Legislature: Too Many Registrars? Or Too Little Thought? <read>
The Courant is correct, we need professional, appointed election administrators. But they should not be appointed locally, especially in single party dominated towns, like Hartford or Bridgeport. As we have said before, and for quite some time: The comprehensive solution is to “Do for Elections what we have done for Probate“. Consolidation, Professionalization, and Regionalization. Not a panacea, but in our opinion a prerequisite.

UConn Memory Card Report: More garbage in, some good information out

Once again, we applaud Dr. Alexander Shvartsman and his team for developing the technology to perform these innovative tests, the diligence to perform the tedious tests, and the fortitude to report the facts. Compliance by officials leaves much to be desired:

Prior to the primary 110 out of 598 districts sent cards, that is 18.5% compliance
After the primary 105 out of 598 districts sent cards, that is 17.6% compliance,
however, only 49 of those cards were used in the election, a compliance rate of 8.2%

Last week, the University of Connecticut UConn released its latest memory card report: Technological Audit of Memory Cards for the April 24, 2012 Connecticut Primary Elections <report>

We can easily echo our summary of the previous report.

We applaud Dr. Alexander Shvartsman and his team for developing the technology to perform these innovative tests, the diligence to perform the tedious tests, and the fortitude to report the facts.

We do not applaud the lack of cooperation of officials in the audit or the lack of official compliance with memory card procedures. We are left wondering if this is the level of compliance and cooperation when officials know their efforts will be disclosed: “What is their compliance when their actions are unlikely or impossible to scrutinize?” Can you imagine such numbers from any other technology or Government function? Where is the outrage?

Take a look at these statistics for the election with 598 districts each expected to send in a card before and after the elections:

Prior to the primary 110 out of 598 districts sent cards, that is 18.5% compliance

After the primary 105 out of 598 districts sent cards, that is 17.6% compliance,

however, only 49 of those cards were used in the election, a compliance rate of 8.2%

UConn expressed doubts, as we also have, that the cards were actually selected randomly as directed.

UConn concluded that there is a need for compliance with directives and procedures, not only in the rate of sending in cards, but in following election procedures:

We make the following concluding remarks and recommendations.

The SOTS Office should continue publicizing proper procedures and continue offering training. In particular, to reinforce the need to prepare all cards for election prior to the election dayand prior to the pre-election audit.

Fewer cards are being duplicated at the districts, and it is important to continue reiterating that cards must never be duplicated. Any cases of duplication should recorded in the moderators’ logs and be brought to the attention of the SOTS Office with a documented explanation of why this is necessary.

It is important for the districts to report any problems during pre-election testing (and any card problems) to the SOTS Oce as soon as possible upon completion of the tests.

It is important for the districts report to the SOTS Office any unexpected behavior of the tabulators that seem to necessitate a restart or a memory card reset. It would be helpful if moderators’ logs contained records of machine restarts, perceived causes, and reasoning for the restart or reset. There was at least one documented case of a tabulator malfunction during this primary election. In such cases it is strongly recommended that the problematic tabulator is tested by the Center personnel (either at the district or in our laboratory).

The current number of cards with unreadable data (junk data) continues to be high. We have determined that weak batteries are the primary cause of this. The vendor developed a new non-volatile, battery-less memory card, and our ongoing evaluation continues to conrm their compatibility with the AV-OS machines used Connecticut. A limited pilot using the new cards was successfully performed in Vernon. It is expected that a broader pilot deployment of the new cards by the SOTS Oce will occur in the near future. The use of the new card should eliminate the major cause of memory card failures.

It is important that cards sent for the pre-election audit are selected at random. One card randomly selected from four cards in each district is to be randomly selected for the audit. While the districts are encouraged to submit all malfunctioning cards to VoTeR Center, all such cards need to be identied separately from the cards randomly selected for the audit. When a suciently large collection of cards is selected randomly for audit, the results of the audit meaningfully represent the overall State landscape and help identify technological and procedural problems that need to be solved. Should the selection not be at random, for example, by avoiding sending duplicated cards in for audit, the results are less representative, and may lead to masking technological problems. Therefore training should continue stressing the need to submit appropriate cards for the pre-election audit.

For the post-election we received fewer than expected number of cards, 155, out of which only 49 were used in the election. This is a very low number. It would be extremely important in the future to obtain substantially larger numbers of cards from the actual use in the elections.

It is indeed good news that their has been a successful first test of new memory cards. Hopefully, further testing will be successful and will result in a relatively speedy full deployment:

New non-volatile (battery-less) memory card was recently developed by the vendor. Our preliminary analysis of this card concermed that it is compatible with AV-OS systems deployed in Connecticut. A pilot deployment of the new cards was done in the Town of Vernon using 12 of the new cards. The cards performed well, no failures were detected, and no such cards lost their data. However this is a very small sample of cards. We are currently performing in-depth testing of the non-volatile cards and as of this writing the results are encouraging.

A broader pilot is being planned by the SOTS Oce to occur in the near future. The use of the new card should eliminate the major cause of memory card failures.