Inadequate Election Day Registration Pilot Nixed

We are conditionally for Election Day Registration and opposed this inadequate bill. Our opposition was based on authorizing a pilot program with inadequate evaluation provisions, piloting an inadequate, disenfranchising voting method.

CTMirror report:  Panel Kills Primary Day voter registration bill <read>

The state legislature’s Appropriations Committee killed a bill Monday that would have allowed residents to register and cast ballots on the same day during the 2011 municipal primaries.

The pilot program, which was rejected 39-11 with bipartisan opposition, also had been opposed by municipal registrars of voters, who saw it as the first step toward general Election Day registration.

“What a nightmare it is for them, logistically, to implement this,” Sen. Daniel Debicella of Shelton, the ranking Republican senator on the Democrat-controlled Appropriations Committee, said.

Primaries are meant to allow political parties to resolve their respective nominations for offices, said Rep. Deborah Heinrich, D-Madison, adding she fears the bill would lead to a mass of last-minute registrations from voters interested only in casting a primary ballot, and not in remaining with their new party. “I don’t see that exactly as the system working,” she said.

Advocates of allowing same-day voter registration argue it is an effective tool to boost voter participation. Nine states currently offer some form of Election Day registration: Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

“They are a rousing success” in those states, said Rep. John Geragosian, D-New Britain, co-chairman of the Appropriations Committee and a supporter of the measure defeated Monday.

We are conditionally for * Election Day Registration and opposed this inadequate bill in our testimony earlier this year.  Our opposition was based on authorizing a pilot program with inadequate  evaluation provisions, piloting an inadequate, disenfranchising voting method:

I support the good intentions and concepts behind H.B.5321, yet I have serious concerns with the specific approaches in the current bill.

I am generally opposed to the expansion of absentee balloting for any purpose. Absentee ballots have security and integrity risks not associated with regular voting. Election day registration may represent over 10% of the votes in an election. Beyond risks to integrity, in every election absentee voters are disenfranchised without their knowledge in two ways:

  • First, they may make a simple mistake in following procedures and have their ballot rejected.
  • Second, voters do not have the opportunity to revote their ballot if by mistake they overvote.

It would serve the voters of Connecticut much better if Election Day Registration (or EDR) were available at each polling place as is the case in five (5) of the six (6) states with EDR as of 2006.  Connecticut could follow the examples of Maine, New Hampshire, or Minnesota. We are piloting a less than adequate system, I presume because of concerns with cost and integrity. I recall testimony before the GAE demonstrating the integrity and effectiveness of polling place EDR in Maine.

I would also recommend that any pilot program include a requirement for independent objective analysis with reporting back to the Legislature, rather than relying only on feedback from election officials. When Secretary Bysiewicz chose new election equipment in 2006, she included an independent professional analysis involving citizen evaluation, along with focus groups of citizens and election officials. Without that study we might well have doubled our costs and be voting today on inadequate touch screen voting equipment.

See our full testimony for how this bill could have been improved: <Testimony>

(*) When we say we are “Conditionally Against” a proposition, we mean that nobody has proposed a realistic safe way to accomplish the proposition. We remain open to the possibility that a means may be found that would pass the scrutiny of the majority of computer scientists, security experts, election officials, and voting integrity advocates.

When we say we are “Conditionally For” a proposition, we mean that other states have safe implementations of the proposition or computer scientists, security experts, election officials, and voting integrity advocates have recommendeda safe solution. We caution that a particular implementation or law may not meet a reasonable standard of safety.

Columnist Calls for Elimination of the Secretary of the State

Coming two weeks after April 1st, we assume the author is serious. We point out that transferring the functions of the Secretary of the State to the Attorney General or the State Elections Enforcement Commission would hardly eliminate much of the Secretary’s $8.4 million budget, especially if we still want to register businesses in the state, keep records, comply with election laws, train election officials, total results, assist election officials, and maintain an independent enforcement function. We also note that Hawaii has not been doing so well in elections without a Secretary of the State and is a case study in how not to outsource elections.

But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible – Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

CTPost: ‘A Modest Proposal’ for the Secretary of the State’s Office, by MariAn Gail Brown <read>

And, if we’re really serious about finding savings in this tough economic climate, why not get rid of her entire office with its $8.4 million budget?

Three states — Hawaii, Alaska and Utah — get along just fine without any secretary of state. And Arizona is poised to eliminate its secretary of state, and have its responsibilities assumed by a newly created lieutenant governor…

Sure, it’s one of four constitutional offices, but just because it’s been that way for more than two-and-half centuries doesn’t mean it has to be this way. We can and we should get rid of it. Of course, in the Land of Steady Habits, the secretary of the state’s job is an elective office authorized under our state Constitution.

That means it will take a constitutional convention to change. And the last time the Nutmeg State did some constitutional soul searching was 1965. Forty-five years is a long time to go without this kind of checkup. Let’s demand that our General Assembly vote to convene a Constitutional Convention for the express purpose of nixing the secretary of the state position.

Where might government transfer the functions this elective office is responsible for — items like election law, campaign oversight, voter registration, corporate filings and licensing? Connecticut already has a State Elections Enforcement Commission and an attorney general’s office. Most, if not all, of the secretary of the state’s workload can be delegated between those two agencies.

Coming two weeks after April 1st, we assume the author is serious.  We point out that transferring the functions of the Secretary of the State to the Attorney General or the State Elections Enforcement Commission would hardly eliminate much of the Secretary’s $8.4 million budget, especially if we still want to register businesses in the state, keep records, comply with election laws, train election officials, total results, assist election officials, and maintain an independent enforcement function.

We also note that Hawaii has not been doing so well in elections without a Secretary of the State and is a case study in how not to outsource elections <read report, page 19>.

In a similar vein we could suggest eliminating columnists from newspapers along with the budget for editing, printing, and delivering their columns.  After all the advertising department can type and the billing department prints and delivers invoices already.

Update:  An advocate with experience in Utah points out:

Just because in Utah the Secretary of State’s office instead has the title “Lt. Governor” does not mean Utah does without all the functions of a Secretary of State. The Utah Lt. Governor is a member of the National Association of Secretaries of State. I would imagine that the other two states mentioned by the author likewise have officials who are members of NASS because they perform the equivalent functions despite not having the label of SoS. It is true that not all Secretaries of State handle elections. In Utah, the Lt. Governor hires a state Election Director but gets the final say re. elections but in some states there is a separate office having legal responsibility for elections.

just because in Utah the Secretary of
State's office instead has the title "Lt. Governor" does not mean Utah
does without all the functions of a Secretary of State.  The Utah Lt.
Governor is a member of the National Association of Secretaries of
State. I would imagine that the other two states mentioned by the
author likewise have officials who are members of NASS because they
perform the equivalent functions despite not having the label of SoS.
It is true that not all Secretaries of State handle elections.  In
Utah, the Lt. Governor hires a state Election Director but gets the
final say re. elections but in some states there is a separate office
having legal responsibility for elections.

Election Assistance Commission charged with shortchanging comment period on Internet Voting

Voter Action today delivered a letter to the US Election Assistance Commission charging that the federal agency is violating the federal Administrative Procedure Act by rushing – without appropriate time for public comment – proposed requirements for pilot programs implementing Internet voting for military and overseas voters in the 2010 election.

Voter Action charges EAC with violating the federal Administrative Procedure Act <read>

EAC rushing – without appropriate time for public comment — proposed requirements for pilot programs implementing Internet voting for military and overseas voters

Voter Action today delivered a letter to the US Election Assistance Commission charging that the federal agency is violating the federal Administrative Procedure Act by rushing – without appropriate time for public comment – proposed requirements for pilot programs implementing Internet voting for military and overseas voters in the 2010 election.

Voter Action charges EAC with violating the federal Administrative Procedure ActVoter Action charges EAC with violating the federal Administrative Procedure Act <read>

Fox Overseeing Chicken Coops – Federal Election Commission Edition

“Caroline Hunter lied to a federal judge about illegal vote caging by the RNC. She now sits on the Federal Election Commission where she continues to do everything possible to deprive Americans of the right to vote. We cannot allow someone like that to practice law. We are calling for her to step down from the FEC and if she does not, to be removed.

Update 4/21/2010:  In defense of Caroline Hunter <read>

********

Velvet Revolution files Complaint To Disbar FEC Commissioner Caroline Hunter For False Testimony In Voting Caging Lawsuit <read>

“Caroline Hunter lied to a federal judge about illegal vote caging by the RNC. She now sits on the Federal Election Commission where she continues to do everything possible to deprive Americans of the right to vote. We cannot allow someone like that to practice law. We are calling for her to step down from the FEC and if she does not, to be removed.

Velvet Revolution references the details on Raw Story:  FEC commissioner helped RNC conceal role in 2004 vote suppression <read>

In her affidavit , submitted under penalty of perjury, Hunter claims “the RNC is not initiating, controlling, directing, or funding any programs of ‘voter challenges’ … including the effort by the Ohio Republican Party to challenge voter registrations in Ohio.”

“Although representatives of the RNC were involved in the emails discussing the possibility of the challenges described above,” she continues, “the RNC has not initiated any challenges to the absentee ballots in Ohio or in any other state.”.

Burchfield tells the court that Hunter’s affidavit is proof the RNC isn’t violating the decree. Rather, he says, her statement demonstrates the party was diligent to avoid “initiating, controlling, directing or funding” any voter challenger programs….

“Miss Hunter’s information and belief,” he[Judge Debevoise] concludes, “is belied by the evidence developed during the brief period of discovery.”…

They also made clear that this was not a statement by a lawyer in open court to the judge, but rather an affidavit signed under oath by a witness in the case for one of the parties.

“If a lawyer makes a misleading statement in sworn testimony to the court,” said Hebert,[executive director at the Campaign Legal Center]  “and then the court not only finds that the statement was misleading but it turns out to be ‘belied’ by the actual facts in the case, I think a state bar would be interested in that.”

“It could be viewed as a serious ethical breach for an attorney, one that might warrant a review by the state bar in which she’s accredited and may be grounds for disbarment,” Hebert continued.

How Not To Increase “Voter” Participation

Dallas: It may turn out that mail-in voting enhanced turnout in the wrong way

Dallas, WFAA-TV: Dallas vote fraud allegations multiply <read/view>

It may turn out that mail-in voting enhanced turnout in the wrong way:

News 8 first reported the allegations early last month. Now there is new evidence of a more orchestrated campaign by so-called “vote harvesters” allegedly tampering with mail-in ballots.

In question are the Dallas County Precinct 5 Constable and Justice of the Peace races. The primary concern surrounds the mail-in ballots cast in those races.

A growing number of residents have cited case after case of mystery mail-in ballots and strangers showing up at their door, allegedly stealing their votes.

Bob Carter of Oak Cliff said it has happened before at election time, and it happened again a few weeks ago. Mail-in ballots arrived in his mailbox in someone else’s name.

The same thing happened to his neighbor next door.

Four mail-in ballots were received by the elections bureau from that address from four people who voted in the March primary.

Carter owns that house, and the people who voted don’t live there.

Mail-in voting, including no-excuse absentee voting is risky.   It can contribute to an image of democracy, but not always the reality of democracy.

Update: 4/21/2010:  A list of mail-in voting problems <read>

Trading the security, integrity, and shared experience of the in-person election process for all-mail elections is a bad idea for a number of reasons. An exam­ination of voter fraud cases over the past two decades reveals that ballots requested and sent through the mail are vote thieves’ tool of choice. Despite claims that voting by mail will increase voter turnout, the evidence leads to the exact opposite conclusion. Such elections, while possi­bly less expensive for election administrators, can be more expensive for candidates, thereby increasing the costs of campaigns for ordinary citizens who want to run for office. Mail elections put voters at the mercy of the postal service: If their ballots are delayed or misdirected, their votes will not count. Also, voters could be casting their ballots without the same access to timely informa­tion about candidates. Finally, elections conducted through the mail destroy the communal act of voting in a way that is damaging to America’s voting traditions and the inculcation of civic virtues.

Trading the security, integrity, and shared experience of the in-person election process for all-mail elections is a bad idea for a number of reasons. An exam­ination of voter fraud cases over the past two decades reveals that ballots requested and sent through the mail are vote thieves’ tool of choice. Despite claims that voting by mail will increase voter turnout, the evidence leads to the exact opposite conclusion. Such elections, while possi­bly less expensive for election administrators, can be more expensive for candidates, thereby increasing the costs of campaigns for ordinary citizens who want to run for office. Mail elections put voters at the mercy of the postal service: If their ballots are delayed or misdirected, their votes will not count. Also, voters could be casting their ballots without the same access to timely informa­tion about candidates. Finally, elections conducted through the mail destroy the communal act of voting in a way that is damaging to America’s voting traditions and the inculcation of civic virtues.

One Way Connecticut Could Empower Military and Overseas Voters

Which would you prefer if you were overseas, in the military, and had a few minutes to use a computer on base? A one page listing of do’s and don’ts or an interactive facility with Frequently Asked Questions and a staffed help desk designed by and for military and overseas voters?

The Connecticut Legislature is poised to pass a bill to change Connecticut absentee voting laws to implement the Federal Military and Overseas Voters Empowerment Act (MOVE).  Although we have been critical of some unfortunate provisions of the Federal act, its overall intentions and many of its provisions are important and are a significant improvement.

One key to truly empowering military and overseas voters is accessible, timely information to speed the process of meeting the requirements of obtaining, completing, and returning absentee ballots and applications.

Four levels deep on our Secretary of the State’s web site we find the following today:

Looking at another state, we find a link to the following interactive facility designed and staffed by the Overseas Vote Foundation:

Which would you prefer if you were overseas, in the military, and had a few minutes to use a computer on base?  A one page listing of do’s and don’ts or an interactive facility with Frequently Asked Questions and a staffed help desk designed by and for military and overseas voters?

To their credit seven states use this system to server their military and overseas voters:    Alabama, Kentucky, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and West Virginia    <details>

It is not free.  It would cost Connecticut about 1/3rd the salary of a lawyer in the Secretary of the State’s Office, or about  1/10th the amount of a primary campaign grant to a single candidate for Secretary of the State under the Citizens’ Election Program.

We will add this to our list of items that a Secretary of the State could do.  Perhaps all voters deserve similar services as well.

Sen. Harris Formally Enters Race – Rep. Larson Endorsement

“The secretary of the state’s office is about jobs and democracy,” Harris, a Democrat, said. “And what more basic components do we need to be successful in the future in Connecticut?”

Today State Senator Jonathan Harris formally entered the race for Secretary of the State with the endorsement of Congressman John Larson. <Candidate’s Web Announcement> <Courant Article>

From the candidate’s site:

“I feel the time is right to reinvigorate the role of the Secretary of the State to play a vital role in growing and retaining businesses in Connecticut,” said Sen. Harris. “The Secretary of the State not only performs the traditional roles of recording the state’s business, administering elections and maintaining business registration but should also vigorously advocate for Connecticut’s businesses and promote job creation.”

“From the Courant:

“The secretary of the state’s office is about jobs and democracy,” Harris, a Democrat, said. “And what more basic components do we need to be successful in the future in Connecticut?”

Harris promised to bring his legislative skill as a consensus builder to what he called the secretary of the state’s “bully pulpit,” a combination he said would increase small-business growth and resulting tax revenue. He also said he will increase citizen participation in elections and civic functions, and improve the office’s capability to provide more information, over the Internet, to citizens and businesses.

The Courant article states that Richard Abbate is still a candidate, while the last we heard, he was not.

Update:  Video from Local Online News <video>

Video: Corey Brinson at Stamford Tea Party

“Organizations like ACORN are fighting every day to undermine our election process and that’s why the democrats are fighting to push through same day voter registration., people are fighting every day to steal the election…I am against anything where I have to give up liberty or freedom or where someone has to tell me how to live my life…what Obama is doing is unamerican.”

Organizations like ACORN are fighting every day to undermine our election process and that’s why the democrats are fighting to push through same day voter registration., people are fighting every day to steal the election…I am against anything where I have to give up liberty or freedom or where someone has to tell me how to live my life…what Obama is doing is unamerican.

Video: Denise Merrill visits the Milford DTC

“Frankly, I’m not all all that concerned about getting lots more people registered to vote. We saw last time 225,000 people registered to vote who had never voted before…they wanted to vote because they were inspired to vote, because they had someone to vote for, and that is what we need.”

From Connecticut Bob who posted all those visiting the Milford DTC:

Frankly, I’m not all all that concerned about getting lots more people registered to vote. We saw last time 225,000 people registered to vote who had never voted before…they wanted to vote because they were inspired to vote, because they had someone to vote for, and that is what we need.

Municipal Primary Post-Election Audit Drawing

There were 33 districts in the recent primary, so 4 or 10% were selected for audit. We also selected one alternate. Given the number of districts in Hartford, New Haven, and West Haven it is not surprising that they were selected.

Today, I observed and participated in the post-election audit random drawing at the Secretary of the State’s Office. There were 33 districts in the recent primary, so 4 or 10% were selected for audit.  We also selected one alternate. Given the number of districts in Hartford, New Haven, and West Haven it is not surprising that they were selected.

Here is the official Press Release.