Candidates Endorsed: Hot Day In August Predicted: Seven Or Eight Statewide Primaries

The Democratic Convention chose Denise Merrill. Jonathan Harris and Gerry Garcia both received over the 15% of votes to qualify for a primary.

The Republican Convention chose Jerry Farrell. Corey Brinson also received over 15%. UPDATE: May 24: Brinson will not primary. And Tim Reynolds drops primary bid for Democratic Controller.

Updated: May 25, 2010:  In a press release, Tim Reynolds drops our of Comptroller primary.

Updated: May 25, 2010: CTMirror: Source says Simmons told staff he is ending campaign <read>

Looks like there may not be a Republican Senate primary, but not yet certain:

A Republican source says Rob Simmons told his staff Monday he will end his campaign for U.S. Senate at a press conference today in New London…

Schiff said he was considering a petition drive to qualify for the primary ballot, but he may be dissuaded by a head-to-head fight with McMahon and her resources. He said during the convention he preferred a three-way primary.

Updated: May 24, 2010:  Meriden Record Journal:  Farrell will not face primary challenge <read>

Corey Brinson announced Monday that he will not challenge Farrell in a primary…Farrell said Monday that he was pleased to have Brinson’s support and looking forward to campaigning with him. Not having to face off against Brinson in a primary, he said, would be a benefit in preparing for the general election.

Updated: as of 9:oo AM May 23, 2010

It looks like a hot day on August 10th with several heated, potentially close statewide primary races:

So far, it looks like Democratic primaries for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of the State, and Comptroller.  Republican primaries for U.S. Senator, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and maybe Secretary of the State.  Several may be three-way races:  Republican Senator, Republican Governor, and Democratic Secretary of the State.

Secretary of the State

The Democratic Convention chose Denise Merrill.  Jonathan Harris and Gerry Garcia both received over the 15% of votes to qualify for a primary. Garcia announced from the podium that he will primary.  Harris will also primary.

The Republican Convention chose Jerry Farrell.  Corey Brinson also received over 15%.

Article and SOTS videos at CTNewsJunkie. <read/view>

According to the Courant, Brinson will decide on pursuing a primary by Monday:

Farrell, 42, of Wallingford, has served as commissioner since 2006. He said his goals were to foster job growth, particularly in small businesses, and drive down state spending.

“I’m going to walk in there and clean it up,” he said. “We can’t let government … just creep along the way it is.”…

Brinson, who garnered nearly 40 percent of the votes, said he was unsure if he would wage a primary, but would make an announcement one way or the other on Monday.

“Regardless of what happened today, the voters are looking for change in their party,” he said. “The state is 25 percent people of color. The convention is not.”

The Democratic SOTS convention from the New Haven Register:

Denise Merrill became the party’s candidate for secretary of the state after Gerry Garcia, a former New Haven alderman, unexpectedly withdrew his name for consideration of the party’s nomination after the first vote, but said he’ll still forge ahead with a primary.

Garcia garnered 455 votes, or 24.5 percent, while State Sen. Jonathan Harris received 552, or 30.4 percent, and State Rep. Denise Merrill, took 808, or 44.5 percent.

All qualified for a primary, but since no candidate collected more than 50 percent, a second vote was required. Garcia announced to the crowd his decision to wage a primary, but asked that delegates supporting him Saturday give their votes to Harris.

Merrill was supported by 966 delegates in a second vote, while Harris saw 826 votes. Merrill said she’s ready to fight for businesses and residents in an assertive speech to the crowd before thanking Bysiewicz, whom Merrill said “revolutionized, modernized, and transformed” the position.

We will provide updates as we read them.

Norwich Registrar Loses Party Endorsement In Close Vote

“Ten-year Democratic Registrar of Voters Nancy DePietro lost the party endorsement Thursday in a close vote at the Democratic Town Committee caucus.”

The Day:  Veteran registrar loses endorsement in Norwich <read>

Ten-year Democratic Registrar of Voters Nancy DePietro lost the party endorsement Thursday in a close vote at the Democratic Town Committee caucus.

Joann Merolla-Martin, 52, a tax consultant, defeated DePietro 29-26 in the vote for the nomination. Merolla-Martin has been active in the party for many years, but has not sought elected office…

The office has had some controversy over the years. During the 2008 presidential primary, some voters complained they were erroneously told they missed a deadline for registering to vote. The office also misplaced some last-day registrations, causing confusion when those who registered were not on voter lists for the primary.

In 2007, DePietro and Republican Registrar Gerald Kortfelt each were fined $3,000 for mistakes in the fall 2006 election, when four mechanical voter machines were brought to the wrong voting districts.

Revolving door in PA swings toward Internet Voting

Some revolutions are good, some questionable. Pennsylvania’s election revolution resulted in many expensive paperless, unauditable, hackable voting machines – not much different than providing overseas and military voters with expensive, paperless, unauditable, insecure internet voting.

Secretary to leave office early to join internet voting company.

Press Release:  Governor Rendell Announces Resignation of Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortes <read>

Cortes to Become Executive Vice President of
Global Elections-Solution Provider Everyone Counts

HARRISBURG, Pa., May 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Governor Edward G. Rendell today announced that Secretary of the Commonwealth Pedro A. Cortes will resign June 11 to become the executive vice president of Everyone Counts, a company specializing in military and overseas voting technology…

“Secretary Cortes leveraged technology to improve operations and services in every facet at the Department of State. In the area of elections, Cortes and his team successfully administered 15 Primary and General elections. He led the implementation of the federal Help America Vote Act, which has made the electoral process more secure, efficient and accessible to voters. During his tenure, the state revolutionized voting, moving from paper and lever machines to electronic voting systems, and voter registration information that is now housed in a centralized system designed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the commonwealth’s voter registration records maintained by Pennsylvania’s 67 counties.”

Some revolutions are good, some questionable.  Pennsylvania’s election revolution resulted in many expensive paperless, unauditable, hackable voting machines – not much different than providing overseas and military voters with expensive, paperless, unauditable, insecure internet voting.

Registrar Nomination: Surprise Change Results In Dustup

“The usually routine nomination of a Republican Registrar of Voters was anything but that tonight at a meeting at Westport Town Hall.”

WestportNow: Registrar of Voters Raines Says No to Nomination <read>

The usually routine nomination of a Republican Registrar of Voters was anything but that tonight at a meeting at Westport Town Hall.  Judy Raines: complained of “being stabbed in the back.” WestportNow photo

After Bob Zappi, Republican Town Committee (RTC) chairman, praised Republican Registrar of Voters Judith Raines for her eight years of service and motioned that she be nominated for re-election in November—a motion that was seconded—Raines stunned the RTC by saying no.

Instead, she said she had two other individuals she was training for her position, and she called them to the front of the auditorium…

When Zappi told Raines this was not the proper procedure, she persisted. Zappi stood firm saying that the RTC would have to form a search committee.

Raines became teary, countering that she “was being stabbed in the back,” considering how hard she fought for funds for her office during the Representative Town Meeting budget restorations.

“I don’t appreciate being blind sided, Judy,” Zappi told Raines.

He quickly nominated George Underhill, the town’s former tax collector who now serves on the RTM, as a placeholder for the position until the search committee could come up with a candidate for November. It was seconded and approved by the RTC.

Absentee/Early Voting Method: Raise Questions and Risks

Another example from Arizona raises questions about the potential risks to integrity inherent in mail-in voting, unlimited absentee voting, and early voting by means similar to absentee voting. This is also similar to the method of election day registration voting proposed in Connecticut this year.

Another example from Arizona raises questions about the potential risks to integrity inherent in mail-in voting, unlimited absentee voting, and early voting by means similar to absentee voting.  This is also similar to the method of voting for election day registration voting proposed in Connecticut this year.

From the YumaSun: 

State calls for San Luis vote probe <read>

Smith: Recorder should investigate vote <read>

The basic question:

The issue of possible voter fraud became public with the release Wednesday of a letter Bennett had sent to Smith dated May 4 asking the county attorney to investigate irregularities in the San Luis primary election on March 9. His concern rose from the rejection of nearly 10 percent of early ballots for that election because they had signatures that didn’t match those of the registered voters.

Bennett’s letter stated: “Based on the extraordinary rejection rates alone and irrespective of the anecdotal stories, I believe that reasonable cause exists that voter fraud occurred in San Luis in the March 2010 election. I ask that your office investigate these irregularities.”

On the surface this seems like a lot of votes to be rejected based on mismatched signatures, raising several questions:

  • Were election officials too cautious in rejecting ballots?
  • Do we expect too much of officials who are not trained in handwriting recognition?
  • Were there really that many wrong signatures/forgeries? Is there some kind of fraud occurring?
  • If there was no fraud, then we must assume that most of the rejected ballots represent voters who intended to vote and are now disenfranchised.

On the other hand do we usually have too few ballots rejected?  Can we really expect election officials to reliably perform handwriting analysis and comparison?

More critical information from the Secretary of State’s information:

Of the total 2,983 ballots cast in the San Luis election, 1,477 were by early ballots. And of those, 143 ballots were rejected because they had signatures that didn’t match the registered voters’, said Jim Drake, assistant secretary of state.

That’s an error rate of nearly 10 percent, he noted.

“The numbers were so extraordinary,” he told the Yuma Sun Wednesday. “Just looking at the raw numbers, something is amiss in the community. We based our request on just the numbers.”

In comparison, in the May 2008 election in El Mirage, there were 1,578 early ballots cast; only 18 were rejected because of bad signatures. This equates to a rejection rate of only 1.14 percent, Drake said.

In another comparison, in a March election in Maricopa County (excepting El Mirage and Guadalupe), 155,605 early ballots were returned, with only 46 rejected for bad signatures – a rejection rate of 0.03 percent.

“As you can see from these figures, something is terribly amiss in San Luis,” Secretary of State Ken Bennett wrote in a letter dated May 4 to Yuma County Attorney Jon Smith.

The 10% is extreme for the state.  It also represents almost 5% of the votes in the election.

This might have gone undetected, but for added scrutiny based on earlier charges of fraud:

The spotlight was placed on the election when Bennett, the state’s top election official, and two members of his staff observed the San Luis election.

The visit was prompted by a previously circulated letter signed by Guillermina Fuentes claiming she had observed early ballots being destroyed in the 2006 municipal election.

Fuentes was the coordinator for incumbent Mayor Juan Carlos Escamilla’s re-election bid in March, but in 2006 she was a backer of then-City Councilwoman Nieves Riedel, who lost that year’s mayoral race to Escamilla.

In the letter circulated earlier this year, Fuentes alleged that Riedel had opened early ballots that voters entrusted her to deliver to county officials who were conducting the 2006 election under contract with the city of San Luis. Any of the opened ballots that were for Riedel were delivered to the county, the letter alleged, but any for Escamilla were trashed.

The reasons we are conditionally opposed to no-excuse absentee balloting and mail-in balloting are the risks of fraud, loss of voter anonymity, and the level of possible disenfranchisement.  Another recent story of absentee ballot questions from Dallas.

Update 7/27/2010: Another Tale from CA: DA probes voter fraud allegations in Calif. city <read>

District attorney spokeswoman Jane Robison said her office was looking into claims that off-duty Bell police officers were recruited to distribute absentee ballots in last year’s election and tell people which candidates to vote for.

It was only one of several allegations the district attorney is looking into in the city where three top officials resigned last week after it was disclosed they were being paid salaries totaling about $1.6 million a year…

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reported Tuesday that a retired Bell police sergeant had filed a lawsuit claiming off-duty city police officers were recruited to distribute absentee ballots in last year’s election and tell people which candidates to vote for.

One Bell resident, Hugo Herrera, told The Associated Press his mother was among those approached by an officer who asked if she would sign a paper showing her support for Hernandez.

When she got to her polling place and attempted to vote, Herrera said, she was told the paper she had signed was actually an absentee ballot. She asked that the ballot be disallowed and that she be allowed to vote for another candidate, adding she never really supported Hernandez but just wanted the officer to go away.

DA probes voter fraud allegations in Calif. city

Update 8/11/2010: Ballot blunder could keep votes from counting; envelope design to blame

Florida another story of voters potentially disenfranchised by voting absentee: <read>

LEE COUNTY, Fla. – A ballot blunder could keep your vote from counting in the upcoming primary election. A new envelope design is forcing the return of some absentee ballots back to Lee County voters. They should be going to election’s officials for processing.

The tiny bar code at the top of the ballot return envelopes is behind the mess. Mail sorting machines are reading the envelope’s return bar code, instead of it’s destination… potentially leaving some absentee ballots in limbo.

Phil Douglas didn’t think twice about sending off his absentee ballot in the mail last week.

“I signed the ballot on the back, I took it to the Estero post office and low and behold, on Monday I got it back!” Douglas said Wednesday.

Frustrated and confused, Douglas tried to send his vote again, taking his ballot to the Three Oaks Parkway post office… only to find it returned to his mailbox for the second time in a week.

“The first thing that came to mind was, hey, this can’t happen. But it did,” Douglas said.

It could be happening across Lee County. Over 40,000 absentee ballots were requested, and all sent out with the same faulty return envelope design. Lee County Elections officials are working with USPS on the problem. Still, the ballot blunder is a sorespot for many, who are trying to make their vote count in the upcoming election.

Damn the science; Damn the integrity; If it feels good do it!

The troops are supposed to be fighting for Democracy, our right to speak freely and even to protest wars if we choose. So, why do we deny or mislead them into compromising their voting anonymity? Compromising our right that everyone’s vote be anonymous?

New York Times:  States Move to Allow Overseas and Military Voters to Cast Ballots by Internet <read>

At least thirty-three states are planning on allowing military and overseas voters to cast ballots by Internet, email, or fax.  What could possibly go wrong?

  • The vote could be hacked to be  changed
  • The vote could be hacked to determine how someone voted
  • But also, even for of a threat, someone in Town Hall or the County may have to receive the votes and they can see how someone voted

The troops are supposed to be fighting for Democracy, our right to speak freely and even to protest wars if we choose.  So, why do we deny or mislead them into compromising their voting anonymity? Compromising our right that everyone’s vote be anonymous?

From the Times:

Nearly three million overseas and military voters from at least 33 states will be permitted to cast ballots over the Internet in November using e-mail or fax, in part because of new regulations proposed last month by the federal agency that oversees voting…

Initial steps have been taken to address the problem. In last year’s Defense Department authorization bill, several provisions were added, including one requiring all states to provide military voters with ballots at least 45 days before the election.

It also allowed states to initiate pilot programs for testing the use of Internet voting, but some states have misinterpreted that as requiring such systems.

Most of the states that have created pilot programs for Internet voting will allow voters to send completed ballots as an e-mail attachment. Others use fax, which used to be limited to phone lines. But because of the growing use of voice-over-Internet phone service, faxes are increasingly being sent on the Web.

We appreciate the goal of the MOVE Act but have been disappointed in the Internet pilot provisions.  Its even worse that states are misinterpreting the flawed provisions as a mandate for possible chaos and compromise.

We have also signed the Computer Technologists’ Statement on Internet Voting, which warns against using unproven technologies.  To the Time’s credit, some critics are quoted in the article along with some pertinent facts:

Cybersecurity experts, election officials and voting-integrity advocates, however, have raised concerns about the plan. They point out that e-mail messages can be intercepted, that voting Web sites can be hacked or taken down by malicious attacks, and that the secrecy of ballots is hard to ensure once they are sent over the Web.

“The commission’s decision basically takes the hazards we’ve seen with electronic voting and puts them on steroids,” said John Bonifaz, legal director of Voter Action, a nonprofit voting rights group that sent a letter last month to the Election Assistance Commission, the agency that released the proposed guidelines… Critics of the increased use of Internet voting say the commission is violating federal law by not allowing enough time for public comment on the guidelines and by circumventing the technical board that is supposed to review any such new regulations…

Critics of the new guidelines say they are flawed because they allow voting machine vendors to do some of the performance and security testing themselves. The results of those tests will then be submitted to the commission for certification.

Most security experts support the idea of using the Internet for registering to vote and for accessing blank ballots, but not for transmitting completed ballots.

Some lawmakers have vowed to slow the shift toward Internet voting.

Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, and Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas, are working on legislation to establish a two-year moratorium on the electronic submission of ballots until stronger security standards are established.

Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, has a bill pending that would in effect ban Internet voting.

The Defense Department decided last year not to create its own Internet voting system until it first receives recommendations from a technical advisory committee that was created by the Help America Vote Act, which Congress passed in 2002…

Richard A. Clarke, a cybersecurity expert and the former counterterrorism chief under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, said he remained skeptical about ballots being sent over the Internet.

“The ultimate solution is for some foundation or organization to put up a large cash prize and take actual voting systems that will be used and allow anyone to try to hack them,” he said.

Sadly the misguided attitude of many election officials is “anything for the troops, if it makes them happy”.  Would they support feeding their children all fast food if it made them happy?  Or letting the troops go without helmets if it made them happy? Or those heavy vests?

“We have nothing but positive things to say about our experience,” said Pat Hollarn, who retired last year as supervisor of elections for Okaloosa County, Fla., which has allowed voters to cast ballots via e-mail since 2000. Ms. Hollarn said she continued to support expanded Internet voting…

Chris Whitmire, a spokesman for the South Carolina Election Commission, said that his state had been receiving ballots by e-mail and fax since 2006 and that he had heard no complaints from voters who chose those methods.

“What we do hear is thanks from voters who previously couldn’t get their ballots returned in time,” he said, explaining that voters receive a blank ballot attached to an e-mail message, print it, mark it by hand, scan it and send it back to be counted.

Johnnie McLean, the deputy director for administration at the North Carolina State Board of Elections, which has offered overseas and military voters the option to use e-mail or fax for their ballots since 2006, said that when she gets a call from a soldier overseas who has missed deadlines but wants to vote, she is glad she has the e-mail option.

“Even though there are security issues,” Ms. McLean said, “those soldiers are real happy, too, that they don’t have to lose their right to vote.”

Update: UOCAVA Pilot Program Testing Requirements: Comments Submitted <read>

Several individuals and groups have submitted comments on the internet pilot program.  Most are critical of the programs lack of appreciation for the risks of Internet, email, and fax voting, while several others point to the lack of consideration for voters with disabilities.   We note that Jeremy Epstein starts with analogies similar to our example of fast food:

Almost everyone likes chocolate cake, but that doesn’t mean it’s nutritious. So it is with Internet voting – we know that it’s popular as a concept, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea, any more than drunk driving might be – it’s a thrill, but it’s dangerous to both the driver/voter and society.

For those who wonder if I have the troops interest in mind, all I can do is to claim that I do.  By the way, here is a photo of yours truly protecting South Korea from invasion by North Korea at Camp Kaiser, Korea circa 1970.

States Move to Allow Overseas and Military Voters to Cast Ballots by Internet

Book Review: The Death and Life of American Journalism

Part of the reason there has been so little improvement in our election laws is the lack of demonstrated public interest. Part of the cause of the lack of demonstrated public interest is the lack of information brought to the attention of the public – the lack of news and journalism.

The Death and Life of American Journalism is more than a diagnosis and a prescription. It is a powerful, engaging lesson in history, with an equally persuasive analysis of the current crisis.

(Editor’s Note:  There are many issues demanding citizens’ attention to improve our world, government, and democracy in the direction of the promises of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  The two most basic issues upon which all others depend are media reform and election integrity. If I could waive a wand and magically choose just one, it would be media reform – with media reform election integrity would be possible and likely, without it election integrity is of little consequence.  I spend my time on election integrity because the problems and workable solutions come naturally to me based on my knowledge, education, and experience.)

I have been meaning to review and recommend John Nichols’ and Robert McChesney’s latest book, The Death and Life of American Journalism, for several weeks. I have been a fan of their work since reading their book, Our Media Not Theirs (2002). I attended the Media Reform Conference in Memphis in 2007 sponsored by the group they founded, The Free Press.  Several weeks ago I attend a local panel with John Nichols where he discussed the book’s thesis. I purchased a copy.  Elsewhere I have criticized Mr. Nichols on a couple of critical election integrity issues in two articles he penned in The Nation, yet that does not diminish my high regard for his expertise on media reform.

It is a slow time for election integrity news in Connecticut with the legislative session all but over and the August Primary three months off. Part of the reason there has been so little improvement in our election laws is the lack of demonstrated public interest. Part of the cause of the lack of demonstrated public interest is the lack of information brought to the attention of the public – the lack of news and journalism.

Were the public aware of the corporate outsourcing of elections; the lack of accountability, auditability, and auditing of elections; the sloppy election procedures in many jurisdictions;  the inaccurate totaling of results; and the vulnerablity of manual procedures and election equipment – Were the public aware, would they demand reform?  Would they connect the dots from viruses on their computers, hacking of government computers, and theft of “highly secure” government documents to the dangers inherent in our election systems?  Without news and journalism we may never know. Election integrity is an example of the criticality of  the media to democracy, one of the theme’s of The Death and Life of American Journalism:

  • News, journalism, the free press etc. are a necessary requirement for democracy
  • Our Founding Fathers realized this
  • Media (newspapers) were highly subsidized from the beginning of our country through the late 1800’s
  • Corporate media is relatively new.  It is not working – to the detriment of democracy
  • The press as we know it is sinking fast, close to oblivion now
  • The free market and the Internet unaided are insufficient to save journalism – hence insufficient to support news, information and democracy
  • Other democracies provide relatively large subsidies to the media – with positive, not adverse consequences for democracy and information
  • We can solve the problem with robust solutions, at low cost compared to the risks and the alternative

The book leaves me with new appreciation for the intelligence of the Founding Fathers.  They understood the importance of information to democracy. Tom Paine’s Common Sense and the newspapers of the day were critical to the American Revolution. The Federalist Papers were critical to the Constitution.  As the authors say:

Without a civic counterbalance to the vagaries of the market, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that journalism could wither and die… [The Founding Fathers] threw the full weight of the American Government into the work of  creating and sustaining a diverse, competitive, skeptical, and combative media system for a nation that would rest power with an informed people…”A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it,” explained Madison, “is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both”

The authors present a complete case for and history of the necessity of the free press; for the success of our democracy. They explain the complete commitment of McArthur and Eisenhower to the free press as they worked to create and revive democracy in Japan and Germany.

As much as my esteem for the Founding Fathers increased, my sadness at our current mesmerization by the system of corporate media also increased.  We can often learn from looking to run “government like a business”, yet when we instead run “government by business” what we get is “government for business”.  When I ask myself, “What Would A Successful Business Do?” and “What Should A Successful Democracy Do?” my immediate answer is “Look around and start by copying the best practices of the most successful democracies.”

Nichols’ and McChesney’s “broad proposal” with four components for saving journalism – was formed from what has worked before in the U.S., what is working today in other democracies, and tailoring it to our situation and culture.

No review, no summary can do this book justice.  It is more than a diagnosis and a prescription.  It is a powerful, engaging lesson in history, with an equally persuasive analysis of the current crisis.

Bills Waiting For Action In Last Days Of Session

We expect a lot of our legislators. Lots of bills; too many details receiving too little debate, deliberation, and discussion; too little time in short sessions (and “”long” sessions); with a “part-time” legislature. Typically election laws, critical to democracy, are not the squeaky wheels.

This year, like every recent year a lot of bills are in limbo, some passed by committee and others “half-passed” by only the House or the Senate.  The session ends on May 5th.  There are several alternative scenarios:  Few, if any, bills will be debated and passed; a moderate number will pass; many will pass on a consent calendar with no debate.  As we said last year:

Naturally, we are relieved when bills with concepts we generally oppose or bills that have unintended consequences are not enacted one way or another.  But we are equally disappointed when important issues and  bills do not receive the attention we believe is appropriate.

Currently there are two election bills we are aware of waiting for passage in one house, both of which deserve passage, in our opinion:

H.B. 5441: AN ACT CONCERNING CERTAIN REVISIONS TO ELECTIONS RELATED STATUTES AND CONCERNING PARTICIPATION BY THE STAFF AND MEMBERS OF THE CITIZEN’S ETHICS ADVISORY BOARD IN POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS.  A bill with many technical changes to the law to account for the change from lever to optical scan voting machines.  There are more changes in the law needed, but it is about time this bill passed.  Similar bills were proposed by the Secretary of the State for the last two years and like many bills were never passed.  The Secretary recently issued a press release urging passage.

H.B. 5442: AN ACT CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING BY MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY AND BY CITIZENS LIVING ABROAD. This bill also has the support of Secretary Bysiewicz in a press release.  We wish it had a few more details spelled out, yet support its passage, especially since it requires all votes be by paper ballot, covered by absentee ballot applications.

Here is an additional bill awaiting passage by both houses.  We support the concept, but the bill needs more work, in our opinion:

S.B. 363: AN ACT CONCERNING POLLING PLACES FOR PRIMARIES.  This bill would allow registrars to use less polling places for primary elections.  A real cost saver when few voters are expected.  A laudable goal: Reduce the number of polling places when few voters are expected in a primary election, if agreed to by all registrars.  This would work well in a town like mine, Glastonbury, where practically everyone drives to the polls anyway.

But what about Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, and other big cities?  In those cities we have between 22 and 32 polling places in elections- all with very low turn-out anyway, because people don’t have transportation.  A registrar could easily justify a single polling place, but that might gerrymander the election, and why might the other party registrar object or concur?: Because it is appropriate?; to aid the gerrymandering?;  for political gain?; or to just go along?

We expect a lot of our legislators. Lots of bills; too many details receiving too little debate, deliberation, and discussion; too little time in short sessions (and “”long” sessions); with a “part-time” legislature.  Typically election laws, critical to democracy, are not the squeaky wheels.

Bysiewicz: “Optical scanners were remarkably accurate”

Remarkable? We do NOT agree that phoning election officials and getting them to agree that they counted inaccurately provides much confidence in the audit, least of all proof that the machines counted accurately. Nor does disregarding incomplete reports create credibility.

Press Release:  BYSIEWICZ RELEASES FINAL REPORTS ON INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF NOVEMBER 2009 MUNICIPAL ELECTION RESULTS AND MEMORY CARDS <read>

“My office entered into this historic partnership with the University of Connecticut VoTeR Center so that we could receive an independent, unbiased accounting of Connecticut’s optical scan voting machines,” said Bysiewicz. “The results of these three studies confirm that numbers tallied by the optical scanners were remarkably accurate on Election Day November 3, 2009. Voters should feel confident that their votes were secure and accurately counted.”…

As part ofUConn’s report, a total of 776 records of races were reviewed by the VoTeR Center following the local audit process. Of that sample, 57.6% or 447 records were complete and contained no obvious audit errors. Of those, only 36 or 8% showed a discrepancy between machine counts and hand audits of between one and three votes, with the largest single discrepancy being three votes. Officials from the Secretary of the State’s office investigated another 299 records of audits where larger discrepancies were originally shown that were later determined to be caused by human error during the hand-count auditing process.

Unlike Secretary Bysiewicz: We do NOT agree that phoning election officials and getting them to agree that they counted inaccurately provides much confidence in the audit, least of all proof that the machines counted accurately.  Nor does disregarding incomplete reports create credibility.

See our comments on the UConn Report:

We have several concerns with these investigations:

  1. All counting and review of ballots should be transparent and open to public observation.  Both this year and last year we have asked that such counting be open and publicly announced in advance.
  2. Simply accepting the word of election officials that they counted inaccurately is hardly reliable, scientific, or likely to instill trust in the integrity of elections.  How do we know how accurate the machines are without a complete audit, any error or fraud would likely result in a count difference, and would be [or could have been] very likely dismissed.
  3. Even if, in every cases officials are correct that they did not count accurately, it cannot be assumed that the associated machines counted accurately.
  4. Simply ignoring the initial results in the analysis of the data provides a simple formula to cover-up, or not recognize error and fraud in the future.

Sort of like Major League Baseball doing a random drug test, and then calling the team managers and having them agree that they must have botched the tests that were positive for drugs.

We also question if audit would pass muster as “Independent” since all the counting is supervised by the same officials responsible for the conduct of the election in the first place.  Only the statistical analysis might be considered independent, being performed by UConn.

We will find it remarkable if anyone disagrees with our conclusions.