CTVotersCount.org

Yale Daily News: Absentee voting may not attract students

At Yale, the biggest challenge campus organizers face is not getting people to the polls on Election Day. Instead, the problem is getting people to register to vote in Connecticut in the first place, said Marina Keegan, president of the Yale College Democrats

As readers know we oppose expanded mail-in voting, including no-excuse absentee voting for voting integrity issues. We recently covered reports that show early voting, including no-excuse absentee voting, actually DECREASES turnout. Now a story from Yale Daily News arguing why it may not increase student turnout: Absentee voting may not attract students <read>

Even if proposed changes to Connecticut elections bring more voters to the polls, Yalies may not be among them.

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill unveiled exhaustive election reforms last week, including one, no-excuse absentee voting, that is designed to boost voter turnout by making voting easier. But while the expansion of Connecticut’s absentee ballot program, which currently restricts mail-in voting to the sick, elderly or out-of-state, may increase voter turnout overall, it is not likely to change the number of Yalies who vote, or how they do so, student and city activists said.

Av Harris, Merrill’s spokesman, said that of the secretary’s proposals, the constitutional amendment to allow for mail-in voting is most likely to impact students.

“The constitutional amendment is the one thing that could really improve the ability of students, and all voters, really, to vote,” Harris said. “But I think of students in particular because their schedules are so varied and it does become an issue of convenience,” Harris said, noting that not one university in the state has a polling station on campus.

At Yale, the biggest challenge campus organizers face is not getting people to the polls on Election Day. Instead, the problem is getting people to register to vote in Connecticut in the first place, said Marina Keegan, president of the Yale College Democrats. Roughly 1,100 students vote in Ward 1, and Keegan said the majority of those students vote at the New Haven Free Public Library, the ward’s Elm Street polling station.

“I think we miss the most votes from people who say, ‘Oh no, no, I’m gonna vote absentee at home,’” Keegan said, adding that they have no way of knowing how many of these people actually end up voting. “But it’s kind of a pain to vote absentee in your home state.”

Any type of absentee voting can be a pain for students, said New Haven Democratic Town Chair Susie Voigt. A former Yale employee herself, Voigt noted that students do not often check their mail, many do not have stamps on hand and going to the post office at all can be a hassle in itself.

“I never want to go to that post office — the line is like two miles long,” Voigt said of Yale Station.

As a result, Voigt said she doubts expanding absentee voting to anyone who wants to vote by mail will encourage Yalies to vote in Connecticut. And Michael Knowles ’12, an active Republican on campus, said he thinks students who want to vote will find a way to vote, and that the current system is not prohibitively difficult.

WFSB: What It Takes To Be A Registrar – Politics Play Out In Registrar’s Office

Connecticut is the only state where a registrar from each political party is elected into office. Many registrars told the I-Team while this may seem inefficient, it has worked literally for centuries.

The I-Team provides a bit of an introduction to our unique system of 339 local elected Registrars of Voters along with some interesting tidbits <read>

“The secretary of state’s office sets the rules and sets the regulations, but we have very little power over local decision making,” said Secretary of the State Denise Merrill.Registrars’ offices are in each of the state’s 169 cities and towns.

There are at least two in every office, a Republican and Democrat, who are nominated by their parties and most often run unopposed. Responsibilities include running the polls on Election Day, but also maintaining the voter rolls, and making sure voting machines are available and in working order — to name just a few things.

“We want to assure the voters that their elections are clean,” said Karen Doyle Lyons, Republican registrar in Norwalk.The I-Team’s research showed most registrars are part time and do not receive benefits.

The ones from Burlington earned just $1,900 a year, but registrars are full time in the state’s larger cities.In Bridgeport, the two registrars each earn $65,000.

In Hartford, there are three registrars because of a significant third party, and they each receive $80,000 plus benefits, and they often have full-time support staff…

Connecticut is the only state where a registrar from each political party is elected into office. Many registrars told the I-Team while this may seem inefficient, it has worked literally for centuries.

“If you had one person, you’d be paying them twice as much because you’re splitting up the work,” said Will Brinton, Republican registrar in Bethany.

Readers may recall we suggested a pay cut for the Hartford registrars so that three could do the same job at the same rate as two.

Urania Petit is one of three [Hartford registrars] making $80,000 there and she’s with the Working Families Party.”The law says if I got one vote over a major party, and in this case it was the Republican Party, I become a registrar, but the major party stays,” Petit said.

Petit said she tried to take a pay cut and she was instructed not to.

She told the I-Team she tried to share the load in the office, but the Democratic registrar of voters would not let her.”I receive a memo one time that said if a Democrat came into the office,

I could not serve that Democratic voter, yet still the office is nonpartisan,” she said.

Readers may recall how this non-partisan thing goes, when a slate was ruled intelligible to run, just one year ago: Registrar of Voters suit: Alleged to have fudged petitions for herself and relatives

Last week we testified to the Legislature. Also testifying was Judi Beaudreau, Registrar of Voters in Vernon, for whom we have worked on three election days. Judi and I do not agree on everything, but we certainly agreed when Judi testified for consolidation. We should consider doing for elections what we have done for probate in Connecticut. As Judi suggested to the I-team:

Beaudreau, a registrar with almost 30 years experience, said many of her colleagues are underpaid, overworked and unappreciated, but added that’s not always the case.

“Registrars come into the job they don’t even have computer skills,” Beaudreau said. “A lot of them are in fear they are going to lose their job.

Well, maybe some of them should.”Beaudreau explained in a number of towns, the registrars of voters remains a patronage job.

“What happens now in the system is that the political parties will pick a person to run for the office, and it may be a person who has put stamps on envelopes or labels on envelopes. Nobody else has the guts to say it because it would be political suicide to ’em,” she said.

And Beaudreau said many registrars’ offices have become so poisoned by politics they cannot operate effectively.”Politics has got to stay out of the elections,” Beaudreau said…

Beaudreau believes just one registrar, who is not elected but has some kind of training certification and is chosen by the state, could work in Connecticut’s larger communities, and smaller towns could get by without one at all, instead having a regional approach, much the way probate judges have been reorganized.

“Each of these small little towns would be just another polling place, but there would be one major registrar, and if political parties needed to have representation in the office, have deputies, one from each political party,” Beaudreau said.

NY: Hard lesson in why we need recounts and uniform election laws

Supermajority and candidate doomed by vague election law crafted by his own lawyer.

New York Daily News: Dem Frank Skartados doomed by vague election law crafted by his own lawyer <read>

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s former adviser wrote the state law that may have cost him his powerful, veto-proof, Democratic supermajority.

Democrat Frank Skartados was forced to concede the seat for the 100th Assembly District last week when he was a mere 15 votes behind.

In his heart of hearts, he believes he won.

But in a double whammy of irony, Skartados was seemingly doomed by a vague election law that was crafted by his own lawyer, Kathleen O’Keefe, while she worked as Silver’s chief election counsel. O’Keefe’s strict interpretation of her own law walled off one of Skartados’ last hopes of fighting for the seat…

In New York City, Board of Elections rules automatically require a hand inspection of the paper trail from voting machines in any election where the margin is 0.5% or less.

State election law doesn’t

Merrill adds experienced election official to team

Peggy’s many years of experience dealing with elections at the local level as a Registrar of Voters and at the state level as a member of General Assembly on the GAE committee are invaluable assets to our office as we work to reform and improve elections in Connecticut.

Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill added Former Registrar and Former Legislator, Peggy Reeves as Assistant to the Secretary of the State for Elections, Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs <press release>

“I am proud to welcome Peggy Reeves to our team,” said Secretary Merrill, Connecticut’s chief elections officer. “Peggy’s many years of experience dealing with elections at the local level as a Registrar of Voters and at the state level as a member of General Assembly on the GAE committee are invaluable assets to our office as we work to reform and improve elections in Connecticut. I look forward to Peggy’s contributions to our team here at the Secretary of the State’s Office. She is uniquely positioned to understand how changes to our elections will affect voters and local communities statewide.”

“I am honored to have the opportunity to work with Secretary Merrill to safeguard the election process and protect the fundamental right to vote. I look forward to working with the local election officials – the registrars of voters and town clerks – who are responsible for administering all state and federal laws relating to elections,” said Reeves.

We know Representative Reeves and expect that she will be an effective addition the the Secretary of the State’s Office. As far as we know she would be the first person on the team in at least several year that has extensive experience as an election official. This is not necessarily an increase in staffing since, as far as we know, to date there has not been a replacement for Lucien Pawlak who left the Office in December.

As we said when James Spallone was named Deputy Secretary of the state, I expect she will also continue to work with, and look forward to working with election integrity advocates as well.

Knowing Representative Reeves we expect that she will be an effective addition the the Secretary of the State’s Office. As far as we know she would be the first person on the team in at least several years that has extensive experience as an election official. This is not necessarily an increase in staffing since, as far as we know, to date there has not been a replacement for Lucien Pawlak who left the Office in December.

Public hearings for 15 election related bills – Update: Our Testimony

Today we provided testimony on ten bills. We talked six times and complemented the Committee on their new format of handling bills one at a time, allowing each person who wanted to the opportunity to testify on each bill separately. It worked very well and did not take as much time as one would expect over the old format of one opportunity per person for the day. Most of the testimony today was agreement or friendly disagreement between registrars, town clerks, state officials, and advocates. In the end we expect that better laws will result.

Note: The General Administration and Elections Committee has taken up several election bills and concepts for this session. We are optimistic that some of the concepts will be developed and passed to provide increased election integrity. Many of the bills taken up, often well intended, have unintended negative consequences. We are highlighting several of them to point out highlighting several of them to point out the good, the bad, and the unbelievable.

Update: 1/14/2011:

Related: Secretary of the State Merrill’s press conference CTNewsJunkiee report and CTMirror.

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

On Monday the General Administration and Elections Committee will hold hearings of 15 elections related bills <agenda>

Most of these bills became publicly available on the Legislature’s website on Wednesday morning and late Wednesday they appeared on the agenda for Monday’s public hearing. A lot to absorb in a few days, yet we can say at this point that there are some good, not so good, and some highly questionable proposals in these bills.

Several of the bills are consolidations and committee rewrites of other bills, specifically for no-excuse absentee voting and an associated Constitutional amendment. One focuses on “Election Integrity” dealing with some of the issues raised by ballot shortages in Bridgeport, moderator training, registrars identifying polling places to the Secretary of the State etc. Another focuses on “Post-Election Audits”, authorizing local officials to audit via “independent machine rather than a tabulator” as an alternative to the current manual count.

Many of the bills are “Technical Bills” primarily intended to make small “technical” changes to the statutes to adjust to the move from lever machines to optical scanner. By our count these bill total 256 pages of details and redundancy since many address the same existing statutes. It seems they must have been written by different groups but perhaps based on previous bills which failed to pass the legislature over the last three years. We are in the process of reading through the bills to prepare detailed testimony for Monday, with suggestions for revisions, deletions and improvements. After reading through all the bills and discussing some portions with other advocates we can summarize a few items at this point:

It is all well and good to replace “machine” with “tabulator”, replace “registrars” with “registrars of voters”, and remove “he”s throughout, we doubt these changes will make any difference in the interpretation of the law by registrars of voters or the courts.

There are many changes that seem necessary to the conduct of elections by optical scanner that are not included. For instance, several sections do not seem to recognize that in addition to optical scanners and absentee ballots we now have polling place paper ballots, both scanned and hand counted to deal with secure and count.

The election laws, I suppose like many others, remain highly convoluted from amendments over the years and redundant. For example there are extensive, almost completely redundant, separate sections for primaries and elections. The problem is that they often differ in critical, substantial ways that make little sense. One bill makes a positive change that would allow officials from other towns to serve in primaries as they the existing law allows for elections. Asked to serve in another town for a primary, I declined to avoid breaking the law.

Within the bills are many good changes as well as some needing improvement. For example, the bill for “Integrity of Elections” calls for registrars to file plans for ballot printing with the Secretary of the State, locations of each polling place, and the names of moderators for each polling place to the Secretary of the State in advance of the election. Our reading indicates that moderators can be rejected by the Secretary but with no specified deadline for such rejections. We have called for the Secretary of the State to have an accurate list of polling places to restore the integrity of the post-election audits. While we applaud that change to enable an accurate list,we will also suggest a possibly more efficient method to accomplish that same goal.

But also within these 256 pages are several significant changes that may or may not be advisable. For instance, one calls for a demonstration “device” for voting in each polling place instead of a demonstration “machine” – it is hard to tell what would satisfy the requirement or if such would also be required for the IVS machines intended for voters with disabilities; our reading of another clause intended to codify the current recanvass procedures would eliminate a critical step in the process; another in our reading would significantly change the counting of cross-endorsed candidate votes – to the likely detriment of candidates and voters.

I am a strong supporter of new techniques and technologies that support independent machine auditing, but we will oppose change authorizing local officials to audit via “independent machine rather than a tabulator” as an alternative to the current manual count. While well intended, the proposed law provides no restrictions on such a machine, no requirements for the process, no standards, no guarantee the process would be anything like the successful example in Humboldt County, CA, and no budget for implementation. Voting integrity and confidence require that any independent machine audit be required to meet requirements that provide for public transparency and validation. In other words, vendors need to dot the “i”s and cross the ‘t”s in software and hardware products, while the law must require election officials to also dot the “i”s and cross the ‘t”s in implementing such audits. Municipalities that balk at spending a few hundred dollars on an audit when they are randomly selected are hardly in a position to acquire such equipment, let alone evaluate the equipment, and develop an effective, satisfactory process.

Nov 2010 Election Audit Observation Report

Coalition calls again for legislature to act.
Citizen observation and analysis show little, if any, improvement in
November post-election audits.

The Coalition noted significant differences between results reported by optical scanners and the hand count of ballots by election officials across Connecticut. Compared to previous audits, the Coalition noted little, if any, improvement in the attention to detail and in following procedures in the November 2010 audits.

For the full report visit http://www.CTElectionAudit.org

Coalition calls again for legislature to act.
Citizen observation and analysis show little, if any, improvement in
November post-election audits.

HB 5732: Bill would eliminate the secret ballot at each voter’s option

The secret vote was implemented in the United States to prevent the selling and coercion of votes. Subjecting the secret ballot to each voter’s choice would negate its purpose and value. Each voter’s vote being secret, preserves the the value everyone’s vote, because my vote’s value depends on yours not being sold or coerced.

House Bill 5732

Introduced by:
REP. MOLGANO, 144th Dist.

AN ACT CONCERNING RECEIPTS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF BALLOTS.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General

Assembly convened:

That chapter 147 of the general statutes be amended to require a receipt for ballots cast by voters who vote by coloring in, with pencil, their selections and feed their ballots into a reader or by electronically recording selections using a station designed for physically disabled voters unable to use a paper ballot.

Statement of Purpose:

To allow voters using a colored-in or electronically recorded ballot cast at a station designed for physically disabled voters assurance of their selections.

First, we point out that a critical “or” in the bill gives any voter going to a polling place the option to get a receipt for their ballot, by filling it out with a pencil: “to require a receipt for ballots cast by voters who vote by coloring in, with pencil, their selections and feed their ballots into a reader or..”

Even if that were corrected, any voter can choose to use “a station designed for physically disabled voters”. Thus any polling place voter could choose the option of obtaining a receipt for their ballot.

Although apparently well intended, we point out that the IVS system does not meet the needs of disabled voters other than the visually impaired, presumably visually impaired severely enough to have significant problems reading a paper ballot; further the disabled have pursued such machines to provide themselves ability to vote independently and secretly. Do we need to point out that those same disabilities would prevent them from using the receipt independently and preserving their secret vote. If they wanted someone to make sure their vote was accurately cast the can choose almost anyone to assist them in the polling place, perhaps with more secrecy since they can choose someone to trust with filling out their ballot; keeping it secure from others; and not risking that a poll worker sees their ballot or gives them a receipt that does not indeed match their vote.

Finally, we note no mechanism, costs, or safeguards in the bill. How are the copies made? How much would it cost? How can the voter be sure the copy matches their ballot? How is disclosure to any poll workers prevented in a way that the voter can be confident their vote is secret?

SB 804: Bill would wipe out post-election audits 7 years in 10

From an audit and election integrity standpoint, this law is even worse than the one we discussed yesterday. Instead of giving small municipalities an exemption for four years, this one would exempt all municipalities for about seven years in ten!

Yesterday, we covered a bill that would provide small municipalities a way to avoid audits and open season for fraud and error to go undetected. Today we cover a bill that would wipe out all post-election audits about 7 years in 10!

Senate Bill 804

Introduced by:

SEN. DAILY, 33rd Dist.

AN ACT CONCERNING RECURRING POST-ELECTION AUDITS.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:

That section 9-320f of the general statutes be amended to provide that any municipality that has successfully completed a post-election audit shall not be subject to the Secretary of the State’s random drawing of districts for post-election audits for ten years.

Statement of Purpose:
To allow for greater time periods for voting districts between post-election audits.

As we said, yesterday:

“Exempting any municipalities and any ballots from the post-election audit would be at the expense of election integrity, defeating the purpose of a random audit. Any gap in the random selection known in advance provides the opportunity for fraud, and the cover up of error. If this bill were to become law, once a particular small municipality was audited, for the next four years (about 9 elections) it would be known in advance that no audit would occur, skulduggery with scanners, memory cards or accounting would not be subject to detection in a audit.

Such an exemption would be similar to announcing that Fort Knox would only be guarded in Jan, May, and September; that imported toys, school buses, or restaurants would only be inspected every ninth year; or that highway contractors would have nine projects exempted in advance from any inspections after one project was inspected.”

From an audit and election integrity standpoint, this law is even worse. Instead of giving small municipalities an exemption for four years, this one would exempt all municipalities for about seven years in ten!

Lets do some approximate math.

Connecticut has 169 municipalities.
In most audited elections we have about 800 districts.
Of those about 80 districts are randomly selected (exactly 10% plus rounding to make it at least 10%).
And 40-50 municipalities are selected under the current audit law.

Notes on the current situation:

Audits select 10% of districts in the election, while the bill would exempt entire municipalities with districts selected.
If we were starting with a clean slate and had no previous audits, since municipalities with many districts are selected more often under the current law, they they would quickly all be selected and exempted, and each subsequent drawing would select and exempt larger numbers of municipalities. After about three or four audited elections all municipalitieswould be exempt. Until 10 years after they were previously audited.
Every four years there are about 9audited elections: 4 November Elections, 4 August Primaries and 1 Presidential Primary. Sometimes the August Primary covers only part of the state, other times it is statewide.
According to our records, since 2007 we have had about 130 of our 169 municipalities, with all the medium to large municipalities included.

So going forward, if this law were passed:

After the August 2011 Primary and the November 2011 Election essentially, if not in reality, all municipalities would be exempt from audit until 2017
After 2017, not exactly, but pretty much as each municipality reached the 10 year exemption, it would be audited again. Perhaps a few would slip being selected that time, but would soon be selected and be exempt for another ten years.
Approximately, after a municipality was selected once it would be exempted for the next twenty-four or twenty-five elections.
And we would have no audits, in the long run for about 7 years in 10.
And never have anything approaching a random audit.

As we said this would defeat much of the purpose and value of our post-election audits.

Merrill pushes for authority over election ballot supply

This seems like a very workable and reasonable proposal. Much more realistic and less wasteful than blindly printing 100% every time. We hope that this is not the only reform considered in the light of the problems in Bridgeport. The Audit Coalition has several recommendations in the hands of the Secretary of the State and the Government Administration and Elections Committee.The Audit Coalition has several recommendations in the hands of the Secretary of the State and the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

Just as we completed our last post and the note above, we see encouragement for our optimism that some concepts will improve election integrity:

From the Connecticut Post: Merrill pushes for authority over election ballot supply <read>

New Secretary of the State Denise Merrill wants the authority to require local registrars of voters to order more ballots should her office determine they have underestimated Election Day turnout.

Merrill’s bill, her response to the Nov. 2 ballot debacle in Bridgeport that delayed the declaration of a winner in the hotly contested governor’s race, was raised Friday by the Legislature’s Government Administration and Elections Committee.

The proposal will be formally drafted in the coming days and presented for a public hearing Feb. 14…

Merrill wants to require cities and towns to certify with her office the number of ballots ordered and any decisions to purchase less than one per registered voter. The Secretary of the State would then have 30 days to review and approve the plan or instruct registrars to order additional ballots.

“And if a town doesn’t feel they want to certify to us, then they would order 100 percent,” Merrill said.

The proposal has its supporters and critics:

Bridgeport Mayor Bill Finch, through his spokesperson, said he had spoken with Merrill Friday morning and supported her proposal. Finch has appointed a special panel to review Bridgeport’s handling of the elections…

The measure got an immediate blast of disapproval from Anthony Esposito, president of the Registrars of Voters Association of Connecticut and the Republican Registrar in Hamden.

“The registrars of voters are opposed to any statute that in any way, shape or form mandates how many ballots a town must order for any election or referendum,” he said…

Her proposal has the initial support of GAE Committee co-chair Sen. Gayle Slossberg, D-Milford, and of Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield.

Although municipalities are always wary of the Legislature’s passing new mandates, Slossberg said, the changes would be meaningless unless the Secretary of the State has the authority to enforce them.

“What good does it do to alert somebody to a ballot shortage if they turn around and say, `This is our estimate. We’re not willing to go with yours’?” she asked.

Slossberg believes the public will embrace Merrill’s changes because voters prior to what happened in Bridgeport assumed “someone in the state has the authority to make sure they’re not disenfranchised. This is common sense.”

McKinney said Merrill spoke to him about her bill and he, too, agrees with the concepts but would like to see the final language. McKinney has continually said Bysiewicz bore some of the blame for what happened in Bridgeport.

“Secretary Merrill’s willingness to take control of this issue is a good sign,” he said.

This seems like a very workable and reasonable proposal. Much more realistic and less wasteful than blindly printing 100% every time. We also we look forward to seeing a full draft all the concepts and all of the changes they contain. We hope that this is not the only reform considered in the light of the problems in Bridgeport. The Audit Coalition has several recommendations in the hands of the Secretary of the State and the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

HB 5727: Bill to add new audit exemption, shift burden to large towns, and exempt officials from fines

Exempting any towns and any ballots from the post-election audit would be at the expense of election integrity, defeating the purpose of a random audit. It would be a unique, bad precedent if taxpayers foot the bill for officials’ fines levied for improperly conducting their duties.

House Bill 5727

Introduced by:
REP. GIULIANO, 23rd Dist.

AN ACT CONCERNING POST-ELECTION AUDIT PROCEDURES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Assembly convened:

That title 9 of the general statutes be amended to reform post
election audit procedures to provide that (1) after an audit, a town
shall have a four-year exemption to relieve the town from holding a
post-election audit, provided such town is a small town; and (2)
registrars of voters shall no longer be held personally liable for fines
for failure to comply with audit procedures. Instead, such fines shall be
levied against the municipalities.

Statement of Purpose:
To reform post-election audit procedures.

You would think from listening to registrars complain that post-election audits were the most expensive, time consuming part of the job; that the audits are almost the sole cause of breaking town budgets. They are not. Post-election audits represent a small part of the costs of election management. Paper ballots cost $0.30 to $0.50 each, elections cost $5.00 to $20.00 and much higher per ballot cast. Audits amount to about $0.10 or about $70,000-$80,000 for a major November election.

This bill would dramatically reduce the audits and provide a four year, nine election period for small towns to to be exempt from post-election audits altogether, at the expense of large towns. We also hear many complaints from large towns as well. They do not understand the basic math that a 10% random selection of districts would be expected to select multiple districts, almost every time for towns with 20 to 30 plus districts.

Exempting any towns and any ballots from the post-election audit would be at the expense of election integrity, defeating the purpose of a random audit. Any gap in the random selection known in advance provides the opportunity for fraud, and the cover up of error. If this bill were to become law, once a particular small town was audited, for the next four years (about 9 elections) it would be known in advance that no audit would occur, skulduggery with scanners, memory cards or accounting would not be subject to detection in a audit.

It would be a unique, bad precedent if taxpayers foot the bill for officials’ fines levied for improperly conducting their duties. There is a reason that the state did not serve time for pay fines for the ethics violations of Governor John Roland and several of our big city Mayors. If officials are exempt from such fines the public would pay thrice: for the official duties improperly performed, for the election integrity not maintained, and the fine itself.

PS: We are unaware of any election official yet fined or otherwise punished for violating post-election audit procedures, regulations, or laws. One of the reasons is that, in Connecticut, such procedures and regulations are unenforceable – one of the things that for three years the Audit Coalition has been recommending the Legislature consider changing.