CTVotersCount.org

Video: Denise Merrill visits the Glastonbury DTC

On Thursday June 17th, Denise Merrill visited the Glastonbury DTC, Part 1: Part 2: Part 3: This is the Q&A. I asked her to respond to the same question I asked the other candidates in Hartford on Tuesday (she had to leave early):

On Thursday June 17th, Denise Merrill visited the Glastonbury DTC,
Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:
This is the Q&A. I asked her to respond to the same question I asked the other candidates in Hartford on Tuesday (she had to leave early):

SOTS Candidates Forum, Hartford Public Library

Given the time constraints and the alternatives to learning about the candidates, it was a very useful event. Much more informative than the single candidate speaking event. More relevant than the stiffer highly public televised “debates” with canned questions from the mainstream media. There was a lively discussion of a wide range of relevant issues. We would like to see more events like this, with more time for questions, more of the public present and engaged – with all the candidates welcome.

Last night, three of the four candidates for Secretary of the State met in a forum at the Hartford Public Library sponsored by the Hartford Vota Coalition. Christine Stuart of CTNewsJunkie was also there and made a report <read> Like Stewart, I was disappointed to meet Mike DeRosa outside, before the event and learn that he was excluded. The sponsors say they are “a group of organizations that have come together with the common goal of increasing voter turnout in the City of Hartford.” The place to start would be full participation at their own events.

There were about twenty-five citizens present. The candidates all made the case for the importance of the Secretary of the State’s office. If citizens understood that, the room would have been overflowing. The question and answer period went by quickly with a variety of extended, intelligent questions with extended answers. I asked one question. Given the interest in the audience, the Q&A could have continued for several hours. I will focus on the election integrity aspects of the forum.

Denise Merrill, endorsed Democratic candidate led off. She stated that she is “Passionate about Civic Education” in schools. As Secretary of the State she would modernize the office, saying that voting should be easy and simple. She expressed concern with the additional money going into elections based on the Citizens United case and expressed strong support for the Citizens Election Program.

Gerry Garcia, primary Democratic candidate was next. He emphasize his goal of giving voice to those who “have no seat at the table”. He joked about having two Jerry’s in the race. (Nobody noted that we also have a Farrill and a Merrill). Garcia expressed strong support for early voting listing several states that have various forms of early voting and especially Oregon which has had all-mail elections for several years. Like Merrill he spoke of increasing participation by increased registration and motivation to participate in the process, saying “Our kids vote every week on American Idol”.

Jerry Farrell, endorsed Republican candidate was the final speaker. He said there were three key issues for the Secretary of the State: Business Registration, Voting, and Records Management. He said when looking at changes in voting he views them through two filters: Avoiding fraud and avoiding unfunded mandates that towns cannot afford. He also expressed support for no-excuse absentee voting, criticizing the current system as forcing voters to lie.

In general, the candidates all agreed on the need to improve automation, the convenience of business and voter access to the state, increase participation in democracy, and increase voter turnout.

Q&A
I will cover the highlights from my point of view. Each candidate present responded to each question. The moderator did an excellent job of allowing the audience and candidates plenty of time to speak, yet occasionally moving the candidates to conclude and giving them a second chance when they did not respond to the question.

The first question was about cracking down on unregistered businesses. Farrell pointed out many consumer complains he receives about such businesses and has dealt with as Consumer Protection commissioner. He also pointed out that each unregistered business hurts those businesses that play by the rules.

Unfortunately, Denise Merrill had to leave after responding to the first question.

I asked the second question. “How far would you go? Where would you draw the line? In supporting military and expat voting. Minnesota has solved the problem with conventional means, while other states are proposing voting via Internet, fax, and email. All of these methods are vulnerable to hacking. West Virginia just concluded a ‘successful’ test of Internet voting at approximately $1100 per vote. Most implementations of email and fix voting involve an election official copying votes onto a ballot, hardly secret. Imagine a town council member with a child in Iraq, or the council member in the reserves deployed in Iraq? The vote would not be secret. At a minimum the person who did the copying would know. Where would you draw the line, what would you spend?”

Garcia would draw the line at insisting on a paper ballot. The protections it provides are too important to sacrifice. Farrell was not as definitive, he said he hoped that the issues could be worked out so that fax or email could be accomplished safely.

A question was asked on the candidates’ support for Instant Runoff Voting. Farrell said it was not his first priority for elections. His first priorities would be fixing the current system then he would consider other areas of changing the election system. Garcia said that IRV was not proven, indicating that he is not convinced at this point.

To another question on how they would make registration easier, especially for graduating high school seniors, Farrell said he would tour the state speaking at as many high schools as possible. Garcia pointed out that although registration is important, we must recognize that only one-third of registered voters voted in the Nov 2009 election – so registering is only part of increasing civic engagement.

The final question was on the advisability of expanding absentee voting with the proven problems of fraud. Farrell responded that while we have had problems, all of those that have been identified have been prosecuted.

New London cure? – Something old and something new: Strong Mayor and Instant Runoff Voting?

We don’t know enough about the operation of New London to know if a strong mayor or council manager form of government would work best, but we note a tendency for people, when they are dissatisfied with their government or the results of the last election to try any cure that sounds like it would help. Something akin to “fighting the last war”.

TheDay: Strong mayor idea gets revived <read>

For the third time in the past decade, the strong mayor question is back, but there are also new questions on how New London should potentially choose its first elected chief executive since the 1920s.

In an “informal” meeting with the City Council Monday, the Charter Revision Commission reintroduced the change to a strong mayor form of government with broad powers that could be on the November ballot.

The change to a strong mayor form of government was twice defeated at the polls, in 2006 and again in 2008, due to technicalities in voter turnout, and what some thought was a complicated ballot question.

Some councilors expressed concern Monday that a new twist the commission plans to add to the potential election of a mayor could doom this attempt.

The commission plans to recommend to the City Council a strong mayor that would be elected by instant-runoff vote, if the first-place candidate does not receive more than 50 percent of the vote.

Voters would rank the candidates on the ballot in order of preference.

If there is not a winner with a 50 percent majority, the last place candidate would then be eliminated and have their second place votes distributed to the remaining candidates.

The process would continue until there is a clear majority winner.

Commission member Steven Skrabacz said the ranking vote system would open the mayoralty to third-party candidates and ensure the mayor would not be elected with a minority vote.

But more than one councilor found the system, which according to the commission is not used by any Connecticut town, to be perplexing.

“That could be something that confuses people,” Councilor Michael Buscetto III said.

Councilor Michael Passero, who called the city manager form of government “a failed experiment” said the strong mayor should be presented to voters with the least amount of changes and supported keeping the traditional voting method.

The commission also plans to keep the City Council at seven members, but have four of them elected from four new voting wards and create three at-large seats.

The voting wards would be drawn according to population not according to number of electors, as is the current system.

The charter commission process will includes a public hearing. The council must approve the ballot questions by the first week of September in order to be placed on the Nov. 2 ballot.

As readers of CTVotersCount are aware, we have concerns with Instant Runoff Voting. It sounds good on the surface, yet there are unintended consequences. Councilor Buscetto has hit on one of our three main concerns: it is confusing for voters. Read more of our concerns and the story of IRV’s rollback in our neighbor to the north: <read>

Not Nominated: Registrar and Deputy Resign

The Norwich Day: Norwich Democratic registrar and deputy resign <read>

Democratic Registrar of Voters Nancy DePietro and her deputy, Carol Cieslukowski, submitted their resignations today, effective immediately.

DePietro, who has served in the post uncontested for 10 years, was not endorsed for re-election during a Democratic Town Committee caucus in May. The party endorsed political newcomer Joann Merolla-Martin, 52, a tax consultant.

DePietro could not be reached immediately for comment.

Cieslukowski, who has served as deputy since last fall, said she resigned for “personal reasons.” She said she was not sure if she would have stayed on if DePietro had not resigned.

Each submitted separate brief letters of resignation to the city clerk’s office today.

“I am resigning from the office of Democratic Registrar; it has been my pleasure to serve the community of Norwich for the past 10 years,” DePietro’s one-sentence letter said.

How’s that votie integrity thing goin’ for us?

Following the mainstream media reports on Tuesday’s elections we learn: Two CEO-Business-Women won CA Republican Primaries. Most incumbents are in trouble. Yet, in Arkansas out-of-state-far-left-and-labor-supported Bill Halter was defeated by incumbent Sen Blanche Lincoln. [Apparently Lincoln had no out-of-state support or significant funders of note].

From reading local papers and watching news channels we get the impression that there were no election glitches to worry about either.

Here at CTVotersCount we rely on the Internet for our news, particularly the venerable VotingNews, BradBlog, and Election Line. Unlike the mainstream media, they dug just a little deeper, providing national coverage of local news and even personally probing the election systems democracy depends on. These are some of their stories; any resemblance to fiction is purely a consequence of reality:

LOS ANGELES

Apparently America’s largest voting jurisdiction is not able to handle the equipment they employ. Brad Friedman continued his quest to vote like voters with disabilities [When they do vote, apparently they must avoid the InkaVote system]. This time he noted 6 failures in his two and one-half hour attempt to vote on Tuesday:

Two years ago, in June of ’08, the ES&S “InkaVote Plus” e-vote system in Los Angeles County misprinted 4 out of 12 of my own votes.

Today, as I tried to vote on the same system, the failure was even worse. Incredibly. And not just because I cover issues of Election Integrity for a “living.”

I spent more than two and a half hours not casting a vote on the system before eventually I, the poll workers, and, apparently, the folks at the L.A. County Registrar’s central help desk call center, simply gave up. A complete and total failure of the e-voting system for disabled voters in the nation’s largest voting jurisdiction. Again. On a system the county spent millions to buy in order to comply with the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) boondoggle by allowing disabled voters to cast their votes independently. <read>

Our Co-Founder, Denise Weeks, had a suggestion that might cure the problem: Require that the leaders in Washington that passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) be required to vote in the way that voters with disabilities are “Helped” by the Act.

ARKANSAS

Voters filed suit against Garland Co Arkansas. Garland Co had 2nd highest turnout yet voters were turned away as polling places were cut from 40 to 2. Those changes were illegal says SOS. “They’ve tried this before,” said attorney Ben Hooten who filed lawsuit on behalf of disenfranchised voters. <read>

Not just anywhere, but where the losing candidate was strong. To save the county money, yet the state pays:

Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter who is challenging Sen. Blanche Lincoln in today’s Democratic primary runoff has a beef with state election officials.

The Halter campaign complained that Garland County – the county seat is Hot Springs, and it’s one of Halter’s strongholds in the primary — had opened only two polling stations to serve several thousand voters, creating long lines and parking woes at points during the day.

Natasha Naragon, a spokeswoman for the Arkansas Secretary of State, said Garland County election officials failed to notify voters of the reduced number of polling stations, as required by state law. Though a local official told the Arkansas press that he had made the decision to save money, Naragon said the state bears all costs for primary and runoff elections.

Garland County did allow early voting at the two polling stations for the week leading up to Tuesday’s runoff, as did counties across the state. <read>

Earlier Brad had noticed some odd results in Arkansas in the original primary:

What’s going on in Monroe County, Arkansas?

We’ve been looking at their May 18 “Super-ish Tuesday” election night numbers on the AR Secretary of State’s website (Monroe County doesn’t have its own public election results website) since the night of the election, and the posted results can only be described as going from “impossible” on the day after the election, to possible but still entirely inexplicable…

The original tip-off to concerns about Monroe County’s results came when on May 19th, the day after the election, the state’s SoS website showed a total of 3,393 out of the county’s 5,252 registered voters had cast ballots — a rather impressive 64.60% turnout! But not “impossible.”…

Notice all of the precincts, in both the R and D Senate races, where the exact same number of votes were cast for each candidate.

For example, in the Dem results, there are four different precincts where 4 voted for Morrison, 9 voted for Lincoln and 7 voted for Halter. Not “impossible,” but curious. On the Republican side, some of the very same precincts also had identical numbers for each of the eight candidates, and a few more had nearly identical numbers. A few of the precincts also reported what appeared to be the exact same percentages for each candidate as seen in the precincts with duplicated numbers, but where the number of votes is simply doubled. All still not “impossible,” but certainly getting much more improbable. <read and view the data>

NEW JERSEY

The “Garden State” grows more than vegetables and oil refineries. It has one of the finest election integrity investigative teams at Princeton University. Professor Ed Felton checked out the security of several voting machines the night before the election, including the one he voted on the next day. With any luck it managed to count his vote, and perhaps even counted it accurately:

It’s Election Day in New Jersey. Longtime readers know that in advance of elections I visit polling places in Princeton, looking for voting machines left unattended, where they are vulnerable to tampering. In the past I have always found unattended machines in multiple polling places.

I hoped this time would be different, given that Judge Feinberg, in her ruling on the New Jersey voting machine case, urged the state not to leave voting machines unattended in public.

Despite the judge’s ruling, I found voting machines unattended in three of the four Princeton polling places I visited on Sunday and Monday. Here are my photos from three polling places. <read/view>

We hate to think it takes a Professor of Computer Science to check these things, or that it would take a science reporter to translate the implications to the public. What else could possibly happen that would cause concerns about voting in New Jersey?

PATERSON — City Council candidate Kenneth McDaniel is asking the state to investigate what he alleges are election irregularities and possible voter fraud surrounding 49 mail-in ballots that appeared last week before a recount of the May 11 municipal elections.

McDaniel appealed in writing to state Attorney General Paula M. Dow to investigate the recount after a state judge on June 2 decided to include the 49 ballots that a Board of Elections administrator said were discovered the day before.

Judge Thomas F. Brogan had ordered that the ballots be included in the recount, saying he did not want to disenfranchise voters. The decision reversed unofficial election results in which McDaniel defeated incumbent Rigo Rodriguez for the at-large council seat by six votes. The 49 ballots – 47 of which were ruled valid — made the final count 5,239 to 5,198, giving Rodriguez a 41-vote victory…

“Unfortunately, I was not provided with the time one would require to investigate a phenomenon of this magnitude; the sudden and unfathomable, untimely appearance of ballots cast for one candidate in a 10-candidate race, only after said candidate petitioned the court for a recount and recheck,” McDaniel wrote in his letter to Dow…

McDaniel said the fact that all the found ballots were delivered to the Board of Elections office by three of Rodriguez’s supporters raises suspicions about their “chain of custody, security and validity.” <read>

We ask, “Just how strange is it that the ballots delivered by a candidate’s supporters would mostly be votes for that candidate?”

We could go on, but you can read more for yourself at: VotingNews, BradBlog, or Election Line. As Hartford voter, Mark Twain said “It’s no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.”

Could things get dramatically worse for our Democracy? Yes, but we will leave that story for another day.

Jonathan Harris drops primary bid

“It is critical that civic engagement in our state continues to thrive and that we have a renewed commitment to growing businesses and creating jobs. Democrats are well-positioned to make sure both of these goals are reached, and I look forward to helping the party in any way that I can.”.

CTNewsJunkie has the story: Harris Bows Out of Secretary of the State Primary <read>

“This was a difficult decision for me, but ultimately the right one,” Harris said in a press release. “It is critical that civic engagement in our state continues to thrive and that we have a renewed commitment to growing businesses and creating jobs. Democrats are well-positioned to make sure both of these goals are reached, and I look forward to helping the party in any way that I can.”…

A newly wed with a 15 year old son and a new house, his position on row C of the ballot, the limited number of days between the convention and the primary, and the $300,000 fundraising limit under the public campaign finance system were just a few of the reasons Harris gave for reconsidering a primary. If you take the family, the logistics of a campaign, and his commercial litigation practice, along with his economic development business, into consideration, “this just wasn’t my time,” Harris said.

He said it was a “twist of fate,” that “G” comes before “H” in the alphabet placing him third on the ballot.

Harris Bows Out of Secretary of the State Primary

Bridgeport Registrars: Dustup, Charges, Investigation

“What started out as an investigation into a missing voter registration card a few months ago ultimately led to the unveiling of 50 voter registration cards stashed away in a desk drawer for years.”

CTPost: Registrar of Voters office: Missing cards, gossip and deputy fired <read>

What started out as an investigation into a missing voter registration card a few months ago ultimately led to the unveiling of 50 voter registration cards stashed away in a desk drawer for years.

Republican Registrar of Voters Joseph Borges said he called an office meeting in late April to discuss the party affiliation change of part-time machine technician Jose Morales’ from unaffiliated to Republican.

Borges said he was concerned that Deputy Republican Registrar Theresa Pavia had changed Morales’ voter affiliation in order for the technician to qualify as her deputy chief if Pavia is elected to the position of Republican registrar in November.

Pavia, who makes roughly $48,000 a year as deputy registrar, won her party’s nomination last month for the position Borges plans to vacate once his term ends. Borges, who earns an annual salary of about $63,000, said former party chair Linda Grace has taken out petitions to challenge Pavia…

The Republican registrar then responded by firing his deputy, whom he had appointed four years earlier upon his election to the position. “I let her go because of her attitude and her saying I disliked her,” he said. “I don’t need anybody watching my back who doesn’t trust me.”

Rosenberg said his client told him she thinks she was fired not because of the argument but because an hour prior to the meeting she had given Borges paperwork requesting time off under the Federal Medical Leave Act because her husband is ill. Borges claimed he never saw the paperwork.

Before Pavia left the office, though, she dropped a bombshell. She presented both Borges and Democratic Registrar Santa Ayala a manila envelope containing 50 voter registration cards that she said contained errors made by Ayala and had been sitting in her desk drawer for years.

Two years ago Borges challenged the activities of ACORN in Bridgeport.

Update: 8/24/2010: Connecticut Post: Hearing finds registrar fired with ‘no evidence’ <read>

Registrar of Voters Primary, Bristol Connecticut

The Registrar of Voters can make a difference in election integrity, voter access, and candidate service. We wish more were interested in serving and contending.

From the Bristol Press: Democrats to battle for registrar’s job <read>

Democrats will face a primary in the race to pick a successor to their party’s registrar of voters.

Though Democrats voted 37-14 Monday to endorse Elliott Nelson, the city’s Democratic chairman, the final decision will be made by rank-and-file Democrats in an Aug. 10 primary.

Mary Rydingsward, who fell short when party loyalists voted, said afterward she would seek to overturn the decision by reaching out to ordinary Democrats.

“I didn’t expect as an outsider to get the nomination,” she said.

Rydingsward and Nelson will compete for the right to take the $46,000-a-year job that Bob Badal is giving up when his term ends this year…

The Registrar of Voters can make a difference in election integrity, voter access, and candidate service. We wish more were interested in serving and contending.

Note: Mary Rydingsward has participated as an observers for the Connecticut Citizens Election Audit Coalition and testified against the bill that would have gutted the value of the post-election audits. I consider her a friend. I do not know Elliott Nelson.

Candidate Leaves Name On Ballot: Causing Unnecessary Primary Vote

He equated his campaign against McMahon and her millions with the futility of Pickett’s Charge. Staying on the ballot at this point initially seems as futile as Pickett’s Charge. On the other hand if Peter Schiff petitions to get on the ballot, or McMahon falters, it might have some potential to impact the result.

Rob Simmons has ended his campaign, yet is leaving his name on the ballot.

CTNewsJunkie story: Simmons Equates Campaign Against McMahon’s Money to Pickett’s Charge <read>

While he refused to withdraw his name from the ballot line, Simmons said he would be helping elect his fellow Republicans to federal and state office, …

Asked why he wants to leave his name on the primary ballot, Simmons said “I don’t see it as a protest, I see it as honoring those who did support me under difficult circumstances and giving them a choice.”…

He equated his campaign against McMahon and her millions with the futility of Pickett’s Charge.

Over the weekend Simmons re-read portions of a book detailing Pickett’s Charge, a Civil War assault by the Confederacy on the Union, which he said was a “foolish waste of people and resources with a demoralizing outcome.“

“It changed the shape of the Civil War for the Confederacy,” Simmons said. “Not that I would want the Confederacy to win.”

Simmons Equates Campaign Against McMahon’s Money to Pickett’s Charge

Not quite sure what he meant by the analogy. Perhaps his campaign up to now changed the election, but staying on the ballot at this point initially seems as futile as Pickett’s Charge. On the other hand if Peter Schiff petitions to get on the ballot, or McMahon falters, it might have some potential to impact the result.

Internet Voting: U.S. Representative Rush Holt responds to the New York Times

“Rather than experimenting with less secure, less auditable methods of voting, I hope that states will use the 2010 election cycle to confirm how much more convenient, accessible and secure the Move Act, which I was otherwise pleased to support, makes military and overseas voting.”

Also, read what are troops are reading in the Stars and Stripes

U.S. Representative Rush Holt responds to the New York Times: <read>

To the Editor:

Re “States Move to Allow Overseas and Military Voters to Cast Ballots by Internet” (news article, May 9):

As you reported, as part of a broader effort to facilitate military and overseas voting, Congress authorized states to conduct pilot projects for Internet voting. Internet voting will be less secure and secret than the hard-copy ballot return for our service personnel already provided for and paid for by the law. It’s important to note that the pilot projects are voluntary.

Most states — but not all — now require a paper ballot or record for every vote cast and routine random audits of electronic vote tallies. These measures are critical to ensuring that every vote, including votes of military personnel, counts and is counted accurately.

Rather than experimenting with less secure, less auditable methods of voting, I hope that states will use the 2010 election cycle to confirm how much more convenient, accessible and secure the Move Act, which I was otherwise pleased to support, makes military and overseas voting.

Rush Holt
Member of Congress, 12th Dist., N.J.
Washington, May 18, 2010

Last summer I asked Represtentative Holt about these provisions, after he spoke at a conference in Montreal. He was surprised that the MOVE Act contained the provision for piloting (actual votes) Internet voting.

For the New York Times piece: See our earlier post: Damn the science; Damn the integrity; If it feels good do it!

Also, read what are troops are reading in the Stars and Stripes: Benefits, risks of e-mail ballots weighed <read>

An increasing number of states will offer Americans living overseas a chance to return their completed ballots over the Internet this November.

But cybersecurity experts and voter advocates contend that these well-intentioned efforts ignore the technical vulnerabilities of sending a voted ballot as an e-mail attachment, potentially subjecting this midterm contest to electronic vote rigging and hacking.

Sixteen states will allow ballots to be e-mailed back to the States, while 29 states and territories will allow the faxing of completed ballots, according to the Pentagon’s Federal Voting Assistance Program. Some states will allow this electronic transmission only in emergency situations or within certain counties.

State election officials say that despite security concerns, transmitting voted ballots over the Internet will help ensure more overseas Americans get their vote counted, improving the dismal return rates among overseas voters.

But despite the best intentions of politicians and election officials, the potential for manipulation of e-mailed ballots is rife because of the very nature of most e-mail — an easily accessible system that is used by many but understood by few, according to David Jefferson of the? Verified Voting Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to publicly verifiable elections.

“The best analogy,” Jefferson said, “is what would it be like if you conducted an election where people voted in absentee ballots with pencil, on a postcard which isn’t even in an envelope, and it was delivered hand to hand to hand to the county. That’s an analogy to how e-mail works.”

“E-mail itself isn’t secure,” said Susan Dzieduszycka-Suinat, president of the Overseas Vote Foundation. “It doesn’t go direct from one computer to another. It has quite a few stops, and at every stop the content can be manipulated.”…