In Washburn’s World: Election Records Would Be Public

“I believe there cannot be effective oversight of an election (by an election official or by the public) if any of the election records are a secret.’

Blog post: The GAB: The Johnny Yoo of Election Administration <read>

I believe there cannot be effective oversight of an election (by an election official or by the public) if any of the election records are a secret.

We agree.

GAB provides legal cover to clerks so that the clerks may destroy election records which the clerks deem too inconvenient to preserve and retain.

In order to set the context for the last two years on this matter I will show my fundamentalist, Christian roots and begin with a creedal statement:

  • I believe there cannot be effective oversight of an election (by an election official or by the public) if any election records are secret.
  • I believe ballots are not secret, but anonymous.
  • I believe the content of a removable memory card used by a voting machine during an election is an election record as that term is used in state and federal law.
  • I believe that ALL of the content of a removable memory card is an election record.
  • I believe the contents of a removable memory card contain an admixture of some or all of the following:
    • programming,
    • ballot “images”1,
    • audit logs,
    • event logs,
    • vote totals at various levels of aggregation,
    • “ballot definition files”2,
    • audio files,
    • screen text,
    • page/screen layout,
    • whole, mountable file systems.
  • I believe the above list is likely incomplete because the exact contents of a removable memory card are secret and vigorously protected as trade secrets.
  • I believe election records should not be secret.
  • I believe election records are records that should have an “absolute right of access“. Under current law some election records in whole or in part are not even open records, much less records with an “absolute right of access“.
  • I believe the contents of a removable memory card used to aid in the administration of an election should be preserved and retained by jurisdictions for the same length of time as the jurisdiction is required to preserve and retain the poll registration lists used to administer the same election.
  • I believe state law, WI Stats. 7.23(1)(g), requires the contents of a removable memory card used by a voting machine in the administration of an election be preserved and retained for 22 months
  • I believe federal law, Title 42, Chapter 20, Subchapter II, § 1974, for federal elections, requires the same; preservation and retention for 22 months
  • I believe state law, WI Stats. 7.24, requires the backups made of the contents of a removable memory card pursuant to WI Stats. 7.23(1)(g) remain in the custody and control of the election official for the entire retention period.
  • I believe the contents of a removable memory card used in a voting machine is MORE important than the voter poll lists used in the same election. This is because the contents of the memory card actively and directly determine how the election is administered, where the poll books do not. If nothing else (and there is more), the contents of the removable memory card control how or if marks on the paper ballot or touches on the touch screen will be recognized and to whom votes will accrue based on those marks or touches. These are the election officials’ duties under WI Stats. 7.50 even if those duties have been delegated to an inscrutable black box.

The Government Accountability Board (GAB), its staff, and the clerks who head the Wisconsin Towns Association, Wisconsin County Clerks Association, and the Wisconsin Municipal Clerks Association do not agree with most, if any, of the above credos.

I object to the notion that there can be such things as secret election records.

Nov 09 Election Observation Report – Improvement, Yet Still Unsatisfactory

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 small incremental improvements in the attention to detail, following procedures, and in the chain-of-custody.

In this report, we conclude that the November post-election audits still do not inspire confidence. We find no reason to attribute all errors to either humans or machines.

Press Release, Full Report etc: <click>

Summary, from the Press Release and Report:

Coalition Finds Unsatisfactory Improvement
In Election Audits Across The State

Citizen observation and analysis show the need for more attention to detail by officials, improvement in counting methods, and ballot chain-of-custody

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 small incremental improvements in the attention to detail, following procedures, and in the chain-of-custody.

Coalition spokesperson Luther Weeks noted, “We acknowledge some improvement, yet there is still a long way to go to provide confidence in our election system that the voters of Connecticut deserve.”

From the report:

In this report, we conclude that the November post-election audits still do not inspire confidence because of the continued lack of

  • standards for determining need for further investigation of discrepancies,
  • detailed guidance for counting procedures, and
  • consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit. .

We find no reason to attribute all errors to either humans or machines.

Cheryl Dunson, League of Women Voters of Connecticut’s Vice President of Public Issues, stated, “We continue to support our past recommendations to the Secretary of the State and the Legislature for improvement in the post-election audit laws, counting procedures, and chain-of-custody.”

Tom Swan, Executive Director, Connecticut Citizen Action Group, said, “Among our greatest concerns are the discrepancies between machine counts and hand-counts reported to the Secretary of the State by municipalities When differences are dismissed as human counting errors, it is unlikely that an audit would identify an election error or fraud should that occur”

Cheri Quickmire, Executive Director, Connecticut Common Cause said “There needs to be training and accountability.  Election officials need to be familiar with the procedures, follow the procedures, and the procedures must be enforceable.”

Press Release, Full Report etc: <click>

Norwalk Town Clerk: Sixth Dem Running for Secretary of the State

“It is reaching out them on the electronic level,” he said. “Remind them how to vote and when to vote.”
Garfunkel often points to technological upgrades made in the Norwalk city clerk’s office since he was first elected in 2001. They include putting maps and other documents online and introducing payment by credit card. The changes have come as the office itself has seen staffing and other cuts.

The Hour: Garfunkel to run for Secretary of the State <read>

Democrat Andrew S. Garfunkel thinks 10 years as Norwalk’s town clerk make him the perfect candidate to replace Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz…

“Engaging our young voters and getting them to register and then vote on Election Day is important to me,” he said. “I will reach out to them where they are, on Facebook and those places.”

He said he wants to make the office more accessible with “alerts” and “reminders”.

“It is reaching out them on the electronic level,” he said. “Remind them how to vote and when to vote.”

Garfunkel often points to technological upgrades made in the Norwalk city clerk’s office since he was first elected in 2001. They include putting maps and other documents online and introducing payment by credit card. The changes have come as the office itself has seen staffing and other cuts.

NY Times: States put Military votes at risk

“Internet voting is in its infancy, and still far too unreliable, but states are starting to allow it and the trend is accelerating because of a new federal law that requires greater efforts to help military and other overseas voters cast ballots. Men and women in uniform must have a fair opportunity to vote, but allowing online voting in its current state could open elections up to vote theft and other mischief.”

New York Times Editorial: Internet Voting, Still in Beta <read>

Internet voting is in its infancy, and still far too unreliable, but states are starting to allow it and the trend is accelerating because of a new federal law that requires greater efforts to help military and other overseas voters cast ballots. Men and women in uniform must have a fair opportunity to vote, but allowing online voting in its current state could open elections up to vote theft and other mischief…

But the value of removing roadblocks is undermined when votes are put at risk, which can happen when ballots are returned by e-mail or are actually cast on a Web site. Massachusetts recently enacted a law allowing service members to vote by e-mail overseas. According to Verified Voting, a group that works to ensure reliable elections, 16 states allow some form of Internet voting, and more than a dozen — including Alabama, Hawaii, Illinois and Washington — are considering it.

E-mail can be intercepted, and voting Web sites can be hacked or taken down by malicious attacks. There are not even agreed-upon standards for what safety measures are necessary.

In many cases, it is not possible to ensure a secret ballot when votes are cast online or by e-mail. That is a particular concern for military voting, where soldiers could come under pressure from commanding officers about their choice of a candidate.

As is often the case, the Times gets it right when it comes to voting Integrity. We would add that if some votes are at risk, our entire democracy of and by the people is a risk.

Many ask “Why not let the Military and even all citizens vote over the Internet like American Idol?”.  The question is not the problem, but the public and election officials should direct the question to computer scientists and security experts and listen carefully to their answers.

Corey Brinson running to be “Chief Inspiration Officer”

“as the state’s Chief Elections Officer, Corey Brinson will serve as Connecticut’s “Chief Inspirational Officer,” and will inspire a new generation of leaders to run for local and state office. Corey Brinson will also work to ensure that all elections in Connecticut are clean, fair and free from partisan politics.”

Secretary of the State Candidate Corey Brinson press release <read>

In addition to ending the business entity tax, Corey Brinson will seek to attract and retain young professionals in Connecticut by creating and chairing a young professionals’ state commission that will advocate for young professionals throughout Connecticut. “If we can have generous tax credits to attract and retain the movie industry in Connecticut, we should also have generous tax credits to attract and retain young professionals who are Connecticut’s future tax base and leadership,” says Brinson.

What is more, as the state’s Chief Elections Officer, Corey Brinson will serve as Connecticut’s “Chief Inspirational Officer,” and will inspire a new generation of leaders to run for local and state office. Corey Brinson will also work to ensure that all elections in Connecticut are clean, fair and free from partisan politics.

Since announcing his candidacy for Secretary of the State, Brinson has been traveling throughout the state “actively” listening to residents. He has received tremendous support throughout the state from both Democrats and Republicans alike. His campaign has received over $11,000 in small contributions, which count toward his campaign public financing goal of $75,000 in campaign contributions.

We also note that Brinson has posted issues on his web site, which include several items associated with elections and voting integrity:

Elections

  • Fair, clean elections free from partisan politics
  • Inspiring more ordinary people to run for local and state office
  • Increased supervision and training of elections officials
  • Increased resources for voter registration and Election Day turnout
  • Establishing Election Day as a state holiday during even year elections
  • Modification of public finance campaign laws based on feedback from candidates
In addition to ending the business entity tax, Corey Brinson will seek to attract and retain young professionals in
Connecticut by creating and chairing a young professionals’ state commission that will advocate for young
professionals throughout Connecticut. “If we can have generous tax credits to attract and retain the movie
industry in Connecticut, we should also have generous tax credits to attract and retain young professionals who
are Connecticut’s future tax base and leadership,” says Brinson.
What is more, as the state’s Chief Elections Officer, Corey Brinson will serve as Connecticut’s “Chief
Inspirational Officer,” and will inspire a new generation of leaders to run for local and state office. Corey
Brinson will also work to ensure that all elections in Connecticut are clean, fair and free from partisan politics.
Since announcing his candidacy for Secretary of the State, Brinson has been traveling throughout the state
“actively” listening to residents. He has received tremendous support throughout the state from both Democrats
and Republicans alike. His campaign has received over $11,000 in small contributions, which count toward his
campaign public financing goal of $75,000 in campaign contributions.In addition to ending the business entity tax, Corey Brinson will seek to attract and retain young professionals in Connecticut by creating and chairing a young professionals’ state commission that will advocate for young professionals throughout Connecticut. “If we can have generous tax credits to attract and retain the movie industry in Connecticut, we should also have generous tax credits to attract and retain young professionals who are Connecticut’s future tax base and leadership,” says Brinson. What is more, as the state’s Chief Elections Officer, Corey Brinson will serve as Connecticut’s “Chief Inspirational Officer,” and will inspire a new generation of leaders to run for local and state office. Corey Brinson will also work to ensure that all elections in Connecticut are clean, fair and free from partisan politics. Since announcing his candidacy for Secretary of the State, Brinson has been traveling throughout the state “actively” listening to residents. He has received tremendous support throughout the state from both Democrats and Republicans alike. His campaign has received over $11,000 in small contributions, which count toward his campaign public financing goal of $75,000 in campaign contributions.

As the election year progresses, we look forward to further details from Brinson and all of the candidates for Secretary of the State.

FVAP Director: MOVE Act requirement “Unfortunate”, “Unfair”

“But just because we have that one unfortunate provision in the MOVE Act, overall, the Act was a huge improvement for military and overseas voters.

The reason this change in the law is unfortunate is not only that military and overseas voters have to reapply every calendar year, but also because in the off-year, if a military or overseas voter doesn’t apply at the beginning of the year, it is unlikely that they will hear of any special elections in time to apply and receive a ballot because they are announced usually within 60 days of their being held. That’s unfair to these voters.”

We welcome the comment of Bob Carey, Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP)<read>

The FVAP comments on our criticism of the Military and Overseas Voters (MOVE) Act.

A couple of things to which FVAP feels it should respond:

– The MOVE Act is, overall, a HUGE improvement for military and overseas voting rights: requiring States to send ballots out at least 45 days prior, to transmit blank ballots electronically, and to accept the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot for all federal elections will significantly improve voting rights for this population.

– As for the requirement to register again, that is unfortunate, and so that is why FVAP is reaching out as aggressively as it is to make sure all military and overseas voters know to reregister and resubmit their absentee ballot application this year. The reason the law was changed is, as “rjs” said, the belief by most election officials that the previous federal legal requirement that States automatically send ballots resulted in many being returned as undeliverable. However, nation-wide, less than 2.5% of these automatically transmitted ballots were returned as undeliverable. In 2008, Connecticut reported to the Election Assistance Commission that NONE of these ballots were returned as undeliverable.

But just because we have that one unfortunate provision in the MOVE Act, overall, the Act was a huge improvement for military and overseas voters.

The reason this change in the law is unfortunate is not only that military and overseas voters have to reapply every calendar year, but also because in the off-year, if a military or overseas voter doesn’t apply at the beginning of the year, it is unlikely that they will hear of any special elections in time to apply and receive a ballot because they are announced usually within 60 days of their being held. That’s unfair to these voters.

Contact FVAP if you have any further questions. Vote@fvap.ncr.gov.

Bob Carey
Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program

We appreciate all reasonable comments on our blog, especially from officials.  We also appreciate that the FVAP agrees that the re-registration provision is “unfortunate”.  Our opinion remains that it is a significant flaw counter to the purpose of the well-intended act.  In addition, the provision in the MOVE Act for Internet voting pilots is more than a significant flaw, it is dangerous.  Without these provisions we would wholeheartedly support the Act.

Video: Gerry Garcia visits the Glastonbury DTC

“The Secretary of the States’ office really needs an overhaul…the website is not user friendly, its incomplete…I’m of a different generation, a generation that expects… to be able to distribute it accurately, online, in as close to realtime as a system can offer.”

Not the greatest video from my digital camera, but the sound is good.

Don’t choose me just because of my name, but see as a benefit where I come from and how that can impact on the ticket.

In response to my question about the need for more accurate, citizen verifiable election information online:

The Secretary of the States’ office really needs an overhaul…the website is not user friendly, its incomplete…I’m of a different generation, a generation that expects… to be able to distribute it accurately, online, in as close to realtime as a system can offer.

What attracted you to the office of Secretary of the State?

What excites me…I am actually passionate about giving voice…I what is not there, who is not at the table…who gets a voice and has standing is deeply personal for me…the SOTS office should be the one stop point of contact for small bussiness in Connecticut…I have no designs on any other office.

I’m the only candidate for any constitutional office, so far, to have opted in to the Citizens Elections Program…I hear a lot of people running for office talking about the program, applauding the program

See the video: Colbert, McCain, Feingold, and the people THEN add your support

NOW HEREBY BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE THE UNDERSIGNED VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES CALL UPON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PASS AND SEND TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO RESTORE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FAIR ELECTIONS TO THE PEOPLE.

FreeSpeechForPeople <video>

Background:  Supreme Court rules corporations are people: <read>

Resolution:

WHEREAS the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was designed to protect the free speech rights of people, not corporations;

WHEREAS, for the past three decades, a divided United States Supreme Court has transformed the First Amendment into a powerful tool for corporations seeking to evade and invalidate democratically-enacted reforms;

WHEREAS, this corporate takeover of the First Amendment has reached its extreme conclusion in the United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC overturned longstanding precedent prohibiting corporations from spending their general treasury funds in our elections;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC will now unleash a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in United States history;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC presents a serious and direct threat to our democracy;

WHEREAS, the people of the United States have previously used the constitutional amendment process to correct those egregiously wrong decisions of the United States Supreme Court that go to the heart of our democracy and self-government;

NOW HEREBY BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE THE UNDERSIGNED VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES CALL UPON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PASS AND SEND TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO RESTORE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FAIR ELECTIONS TO THE PEOPLE.

Read and add your support.

Activist Court OK With Foreign Intervention In U.S. Elections

Activist Court OK With Foreign Intervention In U.S. Elections

“Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.”

Article by David Corn covering John Paul Stevens accusation of  “Activist Court” and reasons for dissent: <read>

By ruling today that corporations and unions can independently spend as much money as they want to back or trash congressional and presidential candidates, the conservative Supreme Court justices are throwing out over a century of jurisprudence that backed the regulation of corporate involvement in elections. Yet will the right denounce the five-to-four decision as an act of judicial overreach? That’s not likely. But Justice John Paul Stevens, in a stinging dissent written for the minority, argues that the right wing of the court has engaged in a brazen act of activism–and has done so to award corporations more legal rights than they have previously been afforded.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/stevens-accuses-supreme-court-conservatives-judicial-activism

Justice Stevens makes some good arguments, the most surprising given the conservatives concerns when the Court makes decisions on foreign precedents:

Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.

Statement from people for the American Way<read>

NPR Coverage <read>

The ruling could unleash a new flood of corporate cash into the political realm just as the nation enters the pivotal 2010 midterm congressional primaries and election season.

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, overturning a 20-year-old decision that barred such contributions.

“We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. “The court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations.”

The new ruling blurs the lines between corporate and individual contributions in political campaigns. It also strikes down part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that banned unions and corporations from paying for political ads in the waning days of campaigns…

For example, the decision removes limits on independent expenditures by corporations that are not coordinated with candidates’ campaigns.

“As long as they do it independently, they can spend whatever they want,” notes NPR’s Nina Totenberg. “It will undoubtedly help Republican candidates since corporations have generally supported Republican candidates more.”

New Registrar and Two Databases add to campaign dustup

Fred DeCaro III, the Republican registrar of voters, said two separate databases have been used by the town over the years to record votes and one wasn’t checked when his office received its first inquiry on McMahon in September.

CTPost Article:  All eyes on McMahon’s voting record in Greenwich <read>

Linda McMahon’s campaign says it has new evidence debunking a claim by chief GOP Senate rival Rob Simmons that she has only showed up to vote in two elections in her hometown of Greenwich.

The campaign furnished Greenwich Time Monday with a letter from the assistant Republican registrar of voters vouching that McMahon voted in the November elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008 and 2009…

“Rob Simmons allowed his campaign to peddle false and misleading attacks against Linda even after they knew their claims were false,” said Ed Patru, a spokesman for McMahon. “That’s a commentary on his character, it undermines a core line of attack he’s been using against Linda, and it damages his credibility.”…

A Sept. 23 letter from the same deputy registrar, Ruby Durant, was the basis for the campaign’s earlier claims that McMahon had only voted in the 2002 and 2008 general elections, according to Shah…

Fred DeCaro III, the Republican registrar of voters, said two separate databases have been used by the town over the years to record votes and one wasn’t checked when his office received its first inquiry on McMahon in September.

“I’m confident that at the very least she voted the number of times in (the Dec. 22) letter,” said DeCaro, who has only been in office for a year. “Obviously, it’s important, and we want to make sure we have the right information.”

We note with interest the overlap of the dates that the original list was 2002 and 2008 while the second list was 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008, and 2009.  We would normally expect the shorter  list to have come from one database of the two and that it would have included only the earliest or the latest dates.  Could they have alternated databases rather than replacing one with the other?