CTVotersCount.org

53 districts in 49 municipalities selected for post-election audit

Yesterday with assistance from Coalition volunteers, Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill conducted the random selection of districts for the post-election audit.

Particularly striking is the rapid consolidation and dramatic drop in the number of polling places over time:

Yesterday with assistance from Coalition volunteers, Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill conducted the random selection of districts for the post-election audit. They are listed in this official press release.

Particularly striking is the rapid consolidation and dramatic drop in the number of polling places over time:

523	Aug 2012 Primary
598	Apr 2012 Presidential Primary
726	Nov 2011 Municipal Election

This is not necessarily a negative trend, in many of our towns where people drive everywhere. Not such a good idea and actually is not part of the trend in our larger cities. What is behind this is saving money, less work recruiting pollworkers, less locations to manage, and less work setting setting up of equipment, while fueled this year by Federal and state redistricting requiring redrawing voting districts anyway. Also after five years of optical scanners, it is obvious that single scanners can handle the volume of all but less than a handful of very large polling places.

The local audit counting period will extend until Sept 17th, 2012

Courant stands for election integrity ( with Windsor/Hartford log of events)

Such questions must be answered so that all voters can have faith in the integrity of the system.

We would add to the Courant’s concern in this obvious and difficult situation, that part of the cure is more attention to detail ahead of time and in every election, this close or not. Learning from experience and reducing the odds of lingering questions.

It was a close primary in Windsor/Hartford with the first official count at a tie, then followed by a recanvass leaving two ballots missing or overcounted on election day. Today the Courant supports the current apparent loser in bringing questions to court: ‘Landslide Leo’: 1-Vote Margin In District 5 Bears Further Scrutiny <read>

Who could blame first-time candidate Brandon McGee for asking the state Superior Court to take a look at the vote-counting procedures in his state House district after the Aug. 14 primary election?

Last week, registrars said union activist Leo Canty defeated Mr. McGee by one vote — 774 to 773 — to win the Democratic nomination for the 5th House District seat in Windsor and part of Hartford. The Democratic winner will face Windsor board of education member Paul Panos, a Republican, in the Nov. 6 general election.

Enough doubt has been raised about the vote that taking it to court is a reasonable course for Mr. McGee to follow.

The initial tabulation on election night and a subsequent recount showed first a McGee victory by one vote, then a tie and then the one-vote margin for Mr. Canty. There apparently is a missing paper absentee ballot, as well as one lost McGee machine vote, after the recount, in Windsor. There are also procedural questions…

Such questions must be answered so that all voters can have faith in the integrity of the system.

We have long said that while, useful, Connecticut’s recanvass are weak versions of recounts. Recanvasses are insufficient in very close races. Even a recount in this situation may not be adequate to determine the actual choice of the voters.

The issue here seems to turn more on the two “missing” ballots. Are they actually missing or were there miscounts on election day? As we and many officials point out people can count inaccurately, especially if they do not take measures to verify their work. It is possible for machines to count inaccurately, or for jams or ballots to be mishandled so that ballot(s) are counted twice. Also, Connecticut’s check-in procedures make it easy for counts to be off by small numbers in either direction.

We have no horse in this race. Even though I attended both recanvasses, I was not an official observer, was only able to observe from a distance, and was not privy to0 conversations/details discussed between officials and official observers – especially conversations relating to the “missing” ballots. I did see some inadequate procedures/actions in both recanvasses, that provide potential integrity holes, but have no evidence of a faulty count. One of my major concerns with recanvasses is the inadequate review of individual ballots for potential voter intent issues – this does not seem to be a significant factor in this case of a vary simple ballot, presumably experienced voters, and apparently few close calls in the actual ballots. Unfortunately, I missed the last exciting hours of the Windsor recanvass. (I went out for a quick meal, but found the building locked when I returned.)

We would add to the Courant’s concern in this obvious and difficult situation, that part of the cure is more vigilance and attention to detail ahead of time and in every election, this close or not. Learning from experience and reducing the odds of lingering questions. For example, to date, the system has never recognized a problem with the results in Bridgeport in 2010, or with the significant discrepancies in that election in the number of voters checked-in vs. ballots*. When campaigning, our current Secretary of the State recognized the problem in lack of uniformity in a recanvass crossing Bloomfield and Hartford. Unfortunately, no changes have been made to correct that problem, perhaps we would not be in this situation today if procedures, training, and vigilance had increased.

* Since the Bridgeport Recount was not official, we would not expect it to change official results. Still, there has never been any official recognition or attempted cure for the inaccurate counting and discrepancies between check-in lists and ballot counts. There are new laws to reduce the chances of running out of official ballots and to make copied ballots so that voting does not get interrupted by lack of ballots or weather emergencies. There is no routine audit of check-in lists vs. ballot counts.

Update: Windsor Patch: McGee Files Complaint, Seeks Hearing on Primary Results <read>

According to a statement released by McGee, the complaint filed in court alleges election officials:

“improperly allowed absentee ballots to be counted that were not counted by tabulation on primary Election Day or during the recanvass;

“improperly allowed absentee ballots to comingle, allowing for an improper count;

“and lost a ballot that was cast in McGee’s favor in Windsor’s John F. Kennedy voting district.”

The complaint says the actions specified are in violation of state statues, and requests a court hearing be held.

While alleging improper actions were taken by election officials, McGee was explicit in saying, “…nowhere in this action is my campaign alleging any wrongdoing by either Mr. Canty or Mayor Trinks.”

“I want to ensure that those who exercised their right were not deprived of their voice, and that the will of the people is ascertained without question of process,” he added.

In detailing the recanvass, the complaint, according to McGee, names Hartford Democratic Registrar of Voters Olga Iris Vazquez, Hartford Town and City Clerk John Bazzano, Windsor Democratic Registrar of Voters Anita Mips, Windsor Town Clerk Agnes Pier, Secretary of State Denise Merrill, the state elections enforcement committee, and fifth assembly district candidates Canty and Trinks.

Update 8/31/2012: Hartford Clerk Testifies In Hearing On 5th State House District Primary Vote <read>

Update 9/6/2012: Testimony Continues In Disputed 5th Statehouse District Democratic Primary<read> Take some of the summary statements about the testimony with a few grains of salt.

Update 9/7/2012: Testimony In Disputed Democratic Primary Race Focuses On Elusive Ballot <read>

Update 9/12/2012: Testimony Ends In 5th General Assembly District Election Complaint <read>

Among other things:

[Superior Court Judge A. Susan] Peck added that she was concerned about the fact that 525 ballots were cast in Windsor, but poll workers only crossed off 523 names, violating state law.

Yes, but we suspect being a little off happens frequently. We have no statistics to go on, unfortunately the check-in lists and easy to make a small number of errors. We point to huge errors in Bridgeport in 2010 which, unfortunately, raised little concern at the time or since, from the unofficial Citizen’s Bridgeport Recount Report:

In several districts the counts of ballots differed from the check-in list counts, and in several districts, our counts of the check-in lists differed from the counts on the moderators’ reports. In many districts check-in list counts closely paralleled ballot counts, yet some counts were over by 21 ballots or less or under by 30 ballots or less. While some variation can be expected due to the difficulty of interpreting some check-in marks, we found several districts where the check-in lists were clearly not counted accurately. In one district, results were under by 117 ballots less than voters checked- in based on our counts.

Update 9/14/2012 Peck Orders Second Recount In 5th Assembly District <read>

Update 9/18/2012 Uncounted, Missing Ballot Found in 2nd Windsor Recanvass <read>

Update 9/18/2012 Town Clerk: Unopened Absentee Ballot Erroneously Marked “Deceased” <read>

Update 9/18/2012: Now it is down to opening that one vote <read>

Update 9/19/2012: A revote Oct 2nd in Hartford/Windsor <read>

Update 9/19/2012: Third Shoe Drops, Trinks drops out <read>

2004 not so long ago, does it take a conspiracy? Consider the context, 2012.

A recent conversation and a video bring back memories and posts covering the 2004 election.

We should cautiously consider the context. 2004 was our last close presidential election. We are in the midst of an apparent multi-state, swing-state, open conspiracy to suppress votes via unnecessary voter ID. And the 2012 election may again be close, like those in 2004 and 2000.

A recent conversation and a video bring back memories and posts covering the 2004 election.

The question I asked myself and answered was “Do I believe the 2004 election was stolen by a conspiracy?” The short answer is “Probably not, it was likely was stolen by several small conspiracies and individual actions”. A conspiracy takes just two or more people conspiring to commit a crime. Four years ago we reviewed Witness to a Crime, by Richard Hayes Phillips, the evidence he generated showed a variety of problems with the 2004 results in Ohio. The evidence seems to point to at least several small conspiracies that together added up to enough votes changed to alter the Ohio result, and the election result. As we have said before, to our knowledge none of the accusations in Witness to a Crime have ever been refuted. We also witnessed the voter suppression in Ohio, perhaps the least likely to be a conspiracy was the Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, rejecting voter registrations not submitted on very heavyweight paper.

Less certain is the claim that votes were manipulated on external severs, and the related small airplane death of a potential conspirator.

Several of these actions, conspiracies, and suspicions were covered yesterday on DemocracyNow!, interviewing Craig Unger on his new book about Karl Rove, Boss Rove.

The video also reviews the sad story of the unfortunate, strategic prosecution/persecution of Gov Don Siegelman. That is half the story. The other half is his stolen re-election.

We should cautiously consider the context. 2004 was our last close presidential election. We are in the midst of an apparent multi-state, swing-state, open conspiracy to suppress votes via unnecessary voter ID. The 2012 election may again be close, like those in 2004 and 2000.

Secretary’s Office and registrars test new election reporting system

From what we can tell, the system may well meet the needs for better reporting that would dramatically move us forward in the PEW criteria, and more importantly, toward higher accuracy and higher election integrity. Yet, the devil is often in the details. After implementation for election night, the system should also be extended to report the results of recanvasses and post-election audits.

For some time, we have been calling for a better election night reporting system that would be subject to addition and transcription errors, contain detailed district data, and provide data to candidates and the public. It was one of the items on our list of What Could a Secretary of the State Do, started in the 2010 campaign for that office:

Provide detailed, accurate, downloadable, election information and notices on the Secretary of the State’s web site

In a PEW study the Connecticut site ranked 48th out of 50 states. We could debate if we should be higher in the rankings, or instead work to emulate and surpass the top ranked states.

The process of accumulating voting results in Connecticut is an error-prone three step process of addition and transcription, from polling place, to town hall, to the Secretary of the State’s Office, and to the web. Citizens have identified errors large and moderate – errors of a magnitude which could change election results, the initiation of recanvasses, or ballot access. See <here> <here>

Without reliable, publicly posted results, post-election audits cannot be accomplished which inspire confidence and provide integrity. A trusted audit requires selecting districts for audit against previously posted results. Since we audit against optical scanner tapes, and the tape results are not posted, then we fail to meet that requirement.

We applauded when it was one of the items in the Elections Performance Task Force Report released this spring:

15. The Secretary recommends immediate implementation of a statewide web-based electronic reporting system for election results.

CTNewsJunkie covers the test with views from several registrars: State Used Primary to Pilot New Election Results Reporting System <read> Last week we discovered, and along with other advocates, reviewed the webcast which described the system to registrars that were part of the pilot.

From what we can tell, the system may well meet the needs for better reporting that would dramatically move us forward in the PEW criteria, and more importantly, toward higher accuracy and higher election integrity. We especially appreciate the input of district Moderators’ Returns and the promised immediate public access to all the detailed data. Yet, the devil is often in the details: Will the Moderators’ Returns include the critical Moderator’s Log? Should the data be reviewed by the Head Moderator before it is available to the public? I would seem easy for a moderator after a 17 hour day to make a data entry error that might go unnoticed. There will be a lot of training necessary if each moderator is expected to input the data in each polling place. Perhaps most multi-polling place towns should start with data entry in a central location with the moderators observing and checking while someone else inputs the data. We are also skeptical of the “Smart Phone” interface – in a Municipal Election, especially, there is a lot of data to enter and the Moderator’s Return can be extensive as well – how long will that take with a small smartphone screen and a small keyboard?

In any case, this seems to be a great start toward a much improved process. After implementation for election night, the system should also be extended to report the results of recanvasses and post-election audits.

Has anyone here seen my old friend Accuracy?

Seems like after just about every election we see media reports of potential and impending ‘recounts’, when there is no such thing in the applicable election statutes. Some may think we are too picky expecting the press and our chief elections official to be precise. Many people call ‘primaries’ ‘elections’ but in the statutes they are different things, just as ‘recounts’ and ‘recanvasses’ are different things in our statutes and in common use.

Accuracy matters in word and in deed.

Seems like after just about every election we see media reports of potential and impending ‘recounts’, when there is no such thing in the applicable election statutes. See these stories: CTNewsJunkie, MyLeftNutmeg, the Courant, and the CTMirror. Where do that all get that same inaccurate idea? Perhaps from the Secretary of the State’s press release, subtitled: SECRETARY OF THE STATE NOTIFIES REGISTRARS AND TOWN CLERKS IN NEW HAVEN,WEST HAVEN, HARTFORD AND WINDSOR THEY HAVE UNTIL TUESDAY AUGUST 21ST TO COMPLETE RECOUNTS IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY DISTRICTS 5 & 116 <read> At lease she pointed them to the right statutes that use the word ‘recanvass’:

Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 9-311 and 9-311a, recounts are to be conducted by election moderators and supervised by Registrars of Voters. The recounts for the 2012 Primary Elections must be complete by Tuesday August 21, 2012.

Some may think we are too picky expecting the press and our chief elections official to be precise. Many people call ‘primaries’ ‘elections’ but in the statutes they are different things, just as ‘recounts’ and ‘recanvasses’ are different things in our statutes and in common use. When we think of recounts we think of the slow and controversial process in Florida in 2000, or the deliberate, adversarial, and ACCURATE process in Minnesota in 2008.

We have said it all before, several times, that a recanvass is not a recount, a recanvass is useful, but a recount is sometimes advisable. Perhaps we said it best in this op-ed: CTMirror Op-Ed: State recanvass law inadequate for close elections <read>

This could be quite confusing if they think there was a ‘recount’ in Windsor/Hartford, but the close result ends in a court battle for a ‘recount’.

We point out that words matter. Seems like just a few days ago the Secretary of The State was able rule that the Democratic Party had line 1 on the ballot, while the Working Families Party could not since they were not really the type of party referenced in the applicable statute.

Canadian election disrupted in broad daylight

Canadian Broadcasting story: NDP gives up: convention cyber attacker remains a mystery <read>

The source of the cyber attack that disrupted voting at the NDP’s leadership convention in March remains a mystery, and further investigation to find out who was responsible has been dropped.

The NDP was the victim of what’s known as a distributed denial of service attack when thousands of members were trying to vote online throughout the day on March 24. These kinds of attacks result in websites crashing or slowing down because the server is flooded with bogus requests for access.

Legitimate voters couldn’t access the NDP’s website to vote and organizers ended up extending the time allotted for each voting round, delaying the final result until hours after it was expected. Thomas Mulcair was finally declared the winner at about 9 p.m.

Scytl Canada, the company contracted to run the voting, quickly detected what was going on soon after voting began that day and reacted accordingly. They were able to keep the voting going by increasing the system’s capacity and by blocking some of the bogus IP addresses.

Scytl, an international company based in Spain, conducted a forensic analysis after the convention but came up dry when trying to pinpoint exactly who was behind the co-ordinated campaign.

Several points worth noting and much to be learned from this story:

A denial of service attack is about as simple as it gets. No insider knowledge required, no understanding of the details of the target application, no new technology to invent.
Denial of service has its limitations. No votes are stolen, although many can be suppressed. The attack is obvious and will be detected.
This was a highly professional system by a leading vendor. That was not enough to prevent the attack, yet expertise and preparation may have been a factor in limiting the disruption.
In this case the disruption was moderately successful, in a relatively small election. A strong denial of service attacks have shut down highly regarded systems for longer periods, hours and days.

What value is an attack that everyone sees? That depends. Courts have been reluctant to grant re-votes, for good reasons. Results of a vote can depend strongly on the other races and issues on a ballot, get out the vote efforts, and even the weather. An apparently semi-successful attack like this one could be successful if it biased the results toward those who could be expected to have the time, opportunity, and inclination to keep trying, or those expected to vote at particular times of the day, or those expected to vote online if it is an alternative to in-person voting. Perhaps there is suppression in just one area with voters strongly favoring one party or ballot proposition, or there is a local contest that would be expected to have a different result it re-voted separately from a national or state-wide election. There is also the possibility of braking news just before or after the election that would change the result on a later vote.

The hunt for actual votER fraud continues

I find it hard to imagine an immigrant or felon taking the time and the risks to vote illegally, especially when so many registered voters don’t take the time to vote, and so many eligible voters don’t bother to register. Those who imagine the nightmare, cannot find significant actual votER fraud.

Here is a short post from Mother Jones articulating that hunt and the examples supplied by one of the most prominent votER fraud imaginers, Hans von Spakovsky: Repeat After Me: In-Person, In-Person, In-Person <read>

There are plenty of other types of voter fraud, of course. There’s registration fraud, where you send in forms for Mary Poppins and James Bond. There’s insider fraud, where election officials report incorrect tallies. There’s absentee ballot fraud, where you fill in someone else’s absentee ballot and mail it in. But a voter ID law does nothing to stop those kinds of fraud. Even in theory, the only kind of fraud it stops is in-person voter fraud…

Hasen[Author of The Voting Wars] provides what few examples he can. Hans von Spakovsky, a Bush-era Justice Department appointee, claimed to have found an occurrence of impersonation fraud in a 1984 case in Brooklyn. But when Hasen finally managed to get a copy of the DA’s report (von Spakovsky refused to share it), it turned out that the fraud consisted almost entirely of insiders manipulating registration books and cards. What little impersonation fraud they found was possible only thanks to collusion with corrupt election officials. Von Spakovsky also brought up a 1997 case in Miami, but that turned out to be absentee ballot fraud. In a later op-ed, he pointed to a case in Kansas, but a court ruled that, in fact, no illegal votes had been cast.

So there you have it. Hasen apparently doesn’t know of any confirmed cases of in-person voter fraud, and the folks who have tried their best to find some have failed…

UPDATE: Rick Hasen emails to say that he recently came across a case that might be genuine in-person voter fraud. The allegation is something stupid (a mother taking her teenage son to vote in her husband’s place), not something corrupt, but still. It’s a case! [Which we suspect could have been identified just by the checkers doing a bit of age guessing]

Conflict of interest generates knee-jerk call for election reform

As we have said before in several ways, modernization and solving election problems in Connecticut will be almost impossible to achieve within the existing system of 338+ local registrars, many of whom are very very part 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.

Press release: Mayor Segarra & Hartford Legislators Call For Election Reform – Registrar of Voters Primary Raises Concerns <read>

This year in Hartford, there is a primary for one of the offices of Registrar of Voters. By the law the current party registrar is responsible for conducting primary elections for their own party. But that naturally creates a conflict of interest when the sitting registrar is also a candidate. This happens quite frequently in Connecticut and is not the only conflict. There can be a conflict when the registrar as a party member and usually a Town Committee member has taken a vote or a position for a particular candidate. Or as happened in Hartford in 2010, the registrar is on a slate for a Town Committee election. A registrar could also be a candidate for higher office and is often the spouse or close relative of a candidate. The list of potential conflicts is almost endless.

Shortsighted, stop gap solutions:

The two failed bills referenced in the press release are stop gaps. One would only apply to large city Town Committee elections. The other would only apply to elections for Registrar of Voters. We also do not like the idea of the Secretary of the State appointing the replacement registrar, that could create an appearance of a conflict of interest and the Secretary may not be that familiar with local individuals qualified and conflict-free to assume the duties. And in Hartford and occasionally other towns we have a third-party registrar candidate running with the sitting registrars administering the election. From the 1st bill:

That title 9 of the general statutes be amended to require (1) a registrar of voters who is a candidate in a primary or at an election, for the office of registrar of voters, to recuse himself or herself from official duties relating to such primary or election, and (2) the Secretary of the State to appoint a person to assume such duties during such period.

Every even year election, the registrars are candidates so they both would be replaced, for half of the elections! Where would 338+ qualified candidates be found? Especially if the state mandated certification of Registrars of Voters is ever materialized? Remember in most primaries and all elections there are multiple contests, it might be difficult to define fairly segregate the duties associated with one contest from the others.

A Comprehensive Solution

As we have said before in several ways, modernization and solving election problems in Connecticut will be almost impossible to achieve within the existing system of 338+ local registrars, many of whom are very very part 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.

Courant: Keep Primary in Aug. We agree.

We agree with the Courant and add some details to the case against September and June.

Courant Editorial: Leave Connecticut Primary Date Alone – Primary Elections Changing months has its drawbacks <read>

Heat and vacations help make August “a terrible time to have a primary” election, Gov.Dannel P. Malloysaid this week. So he’s going to ask the legislature to change the dates once again — to June for congressional primaries and to September for legislative primaries.

Don’t set those months in concrete just yet, governor. Changing the dates might cause more trouble than it’s worth…

A Courant editorial two years ago quoted a blogger whose research showed that August primaries were historically no worse and often better at attracting voters than September ones. Consider the August 2006 Democratic U.S. Senate primary contest between Ned Lamont andJoseph I. Lieberman. It drew 53 percent of the party’s registered voters…

Give voters a good show, make it easy to get in, and they will come.

The last time the legislature switched primary dates — from September to August — lawmakers on the winning side argued that holding it in September chopped too much time out of the general election campaign. When a June primary was proposed, incumbents complained, understandably, that they wouldn’t have as much time as their challengers to campaign.

We agree with the Courant and add some details to the arguments:

September primaries leave precious little time for determining the winners with potential recanvasses and court challenges. Especially considering Federal requirements to print and distribute absentee ballots to military and overseas voters forty five days before the November election.
Incumbents and unopposed candidates without primary challengers would be advantaged in the September primary with the limited time available for candidates to raise funds and campaign for the November election.
In any case, most campaigning for September primaries would occur in August and include Labor Day weekend.
June would be difficult for all candidates. When would party conventions be held? Late May would be far too late for challengers to create a real campaign. State Legislators and sitting state officials would be running campaigns in the middle of the busiest part of the legislative session.
June would not only interfere with legislative business, it would add to the campaign season. Many of those calling for a June primary would be added to those complaining that campaigns are too long!

Update:

The Courant Editorial seems to imply that Election Day Registration (EDR) applies to primaries:

Connecticut took a step in the right direction this year when the General Assembly passed legislation authorizing Election Day registration — a proven turnout booster. Same-day registration goes into effect in Connecticut next year.

Give voters a good show, make it easy to get in, and they will come.

The bill that passed in Connecticut this year only provides EDR for elections not primaries. We checked with the Secretary of the State’s Office – they concurred with our interpretation. Although we are in favor of EDR, we opposed this year’s bill because it may cause problems without the benefits of EDR successful in other states.

Which party deserves top spot on archaic Connecticut ballot?

UPDATED – Court Challenge

The state legislature’s top Republicans charged Thursday that GOP candidates should have been placed at the top of the ballot during last fall’s municipal elections, and challenged Connecticut’s chief elections official to correct the matter before the state elections this November.

Republicans say they should have the top spot. Most votes for Governor last time were on the GOP line. CtMirror story: GOP says its candidates earned top spot on the next state ballot <read>

The state legislature’s top Republicans charged Thursday that GOP candidates should have been placed at the top of the ballot during last fall’s municipal elections, and challenged Connecticut’s chief elections official to correct the matter before the state elections this November.

State law rewards the party with the best showing in the gubernatorial contest by placing its candidates first on the ballot for the next four years.

In the 2010 gubernatorial election, Democrat Dannel Malloy finished 6,404 votes ahead of Republican Tom Foley. But Foley earned all 560,874 of his votes on the GOP line. Malloy, who was endorsed by both the Democratic Party as well as the Working Families Party, collected 540,970 votes on the Democratic Party line, and 26,308 votes on the Working Families ticket.

So which party truly finished first in terms of ballot order rights? Republicans now assert it was theirs…

Merrill’s spokesman, Av Harris, said the secretary’s office expected to complete its review of the legal questions raised by the Republican legislators by Friday.

Democratic State Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo and Jonathan Harris, the state party’s executive director, said Thursday that they believe Democrats are entitled to the top spot on the ballot.

“In my mind, the plain meaning of the statute … talks of the highest number of votes collectively” received by a party’s gubernatorial candidate, and not necessarily votes tied just to one line, Jonathan Harris said. “If you look at the plain language of this statute, it indicates the Democrats should be on line A.”

The GOP legislative leaders also wrote to Merrill that New York faced “the identical issue” in 1995 and determined that while Republican George Pataki had defeated Democrat Mario Cuomo in the 1994 gubernatorial contest, Cuomo received more votes on the Democratic line that Pataki had on the GOP line. Pataki also had been endorsed by New York’s Conservative Party and received enough votes on that line to gain the victory.

A consequence of a bit of ambiguous law, combined with unanticipated consequences of fusion voting, and an archaic party line ballot, designed to resemble the face of lever voting machines.

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; …

Not being a lawyer, I agree with Jonathan Harris, the law seems to read that the 1^st line should be the party of the “candidate that polled the most votes”. Rather than the party “with the most votes for governor”.

This is another reason to change to a non-partisan ballot, yet I am sure there can be equally sticky issues no matter how the ballot layout is supposed to be determined. At least we have statewide primaries coming up, so ballots have yet to be printed.

Update #1

Upon reflection we note that Governor Malloy was also the candidate for the Working Families Party, so perhaps the Democratic Party and Working Family have equal claim to rows A and B on the ballot.

Update #2

Thanks to a reader, for looking up and sending along text from the New York law. It is different, clearly specifying “the party which polled for its candidate”:

In printing the names of candidates on the ballot, the candidate or candidates of the party which polled for its candidate for the office of governor at the last preceding election for such office the highest number of votes, shall be row or column A or one and the candidates of the other parties shall be placed on such ballot in descending order of such votes.

Update #3 Merrill Rules

Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill, has interpreted that the Democratic Party deserves row A, while the Working Families Party did not qualify as a party. Letter to Republican leader: <read>

We note that the Secretary’s letter “interprets” the law. The Secretary’s web site says “*Disclaimer: We do not advise on laws*” but from the law quoted in the letter, she does have the power to “rule”.

Update #4 08/09/2012

Republican Party files suit for top spot, Courant story: State Republican Party Files Lawsuit To Gain Top Ballot Line In November Election <read>

We stick with our interpretation of the law, which says Secretary Merrill is correct. And that what would be right in the long run, would be a change in the law to a non-partisan ballot.

Update #4 08/14/2012 Now it is in court

CTNewsJunkie: Going To Court On Primary Day <read>