Next week it will be Seven – Or more?

“Majority Leader Denise Merrill of Mansfield said Friday that she will be officially announcing her candidacy for Secretary of the State next week.”

Update: “Wild West” election year on top of “Wild West” election management?

According to CTNewsJunkie: Majority Leader Will Run For Statewide Office <read>

Majority Leader Denise Merrill of Mansfield said Friday that she will be officially announcing her candidacy for Secretary of the State next week.

“I’m not exploring, I’m running,” Merrill said Friday.

Merrill, who has served in the House of Representatives since 1994, entered politics through a League of Women Voters law and citizenship program, so running for Secretary of State is “going back to my roots,” she said.

Merrill also was once the vice chairwoman of the legislature’s General Administration and Elections Committee. She has also served as chairwoman of the legislature’s powerful Appropriations Committee.

We see multiple reasons why several Representatives and Senators are considering the office: 1) It is the only open constitutional office in addition to Governor. 2) It is a traditional stepping stone to higher office. 3) Perhaps some are tiring of the legislature. AND 4) A genuine interest in making a difference in the responsibilities and possibilities of the office.

See our last post for a list of references, current candidates, and those with exploratory committees.

Update: Chris Keating’s blog at the Courant: House Majority Leader Denise Merrill, Sen. Jonathan Harris Running For Secretary Of The State; To Replace Bysiewicz <read>

“Right now, it’s a game-changing time for the state of Connecticut,” Harris said in an interview. “We have our backs against the wall, and I don’t think we’re going to get a second chance. … It’s going to be a tough year for election – a volatile year. It’s a wide-open, Wild West kind of year.”

Merrill, a lawmaker since 1993, focused early in her career on many of the issues associated with the Secretary of the State’s office and served as vice chairwoman under Bysiewicz on the legislative committee that oversees campaign financing and elections.

Where have we head a reference to the Wild West before? It was from Rep Chris Caruso describing the election system as conducted by the registrars of voters. Iin a public hearing about two years ago in Danbury:

Representative Caruso again mentioned consistency. He mentioned previous testimony that registrars say they have violated the law. He said the “wild west approach” needs to end.

Majority Leader Will Run For Statewide Office

And now there are six

Another Candidate for Secretary of the State: Sen Jonathan Harris

Update: 12/29/2009: Interview with Senator Harris <video>

It’s about jobs and democracy

Another Candidate for Secretary of the State: Sen Jonathan Harris. CTNewsJunkie has the story <read>

Harris, who currently co-chairs the legislature’s Public Health Committee, said in a phone interview Wednesday that he wants to be in the mix during this “game changing moment” and do for the entire state what he was able to accomplish for his constituents in Bloomfield, Farmington, Burlington, and West Hartford…

“I want to be part of the team that will rebuild a strong economy, create good jobs and change the way we’re doing business,” Harris…

Harris, who is in his legislative office five to six days a week, said he hasn’t decided yet whether he will give up his senate seat. At the moment, “I’m just exploring other opportunities,” and will make a decision about the senate seat in the future.

This brings our list up to six candidates and exploratory committees:

Candidate: Richard Abbate (R)
Candidate: Corey Brinson (R)
Candidate: Gerry Garcia (D)

Exploratory: Jonathan Harris (D)
Exploratory: Kevin Roldan (D)
Exploratory: James Spallone (D)

State Elections Enforcement Commission list of candidates and committees.
Our draft list of questions we would ask candidates for Secretary of the State.
For all coverage of the 2010 race for Secretary of the State, click “2010” on our menu.

Miles Rapoport: Demos Leader and former CT Secretary of the State

A longtime friend profiles Miles Rapoport, former Connecticut Secretary of the State, and Demos.

A longtime friend profiles Miles Rapoport and Demos at the Huffington Post: Demos Promotes Participatory Democracy <read>

Coming of age in the sixties, Miles applied his smarts and competitive energy to community organizing and then electoral politics. He became a successful grassroots organizer in Connecticut, then served in the state legislature and as secretary of the state. But in 2001, he may have found his true calling when he was named president of Demos, a Manhattan-based non-partisan research and advocacy organization gearing up to oppose the myriad right-wing think tanks then dominating Washington.

Demos has done pioneering work on a wide variety of issues. One of its principal efforts has been expanding democratic participation, especially among people often left out of the process. The organization has championed Same Day Registration, which has increased voter turnout by 7 to 10 percent in the ten states that have it. And Demos has vigorously pressed states to implement largely ignored provisions of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act that require them to register people to vote when they receive social services.

Like the author, I consider Miles a friend, we were not schoolmates but we met when our sons were schoolmates. I suspect despite the following story, the President is also a friend:

With all the amazing work Demos is doing, it’s still comforting to know that Miles isn’t perfect. Early in his tenure, he had lunch with a Demos board member he felt needed to be more active. When it became clear the member just couldn’t devote the necessary time, they agreed it was probably a good idea that he leave the board. And with that, Barack Obama was a Demos board member no more. Holding a mock gun to his head, Rapoport explains, “as Hillary Clinton once said, ‘Based on the information I had at the time, it seemed like a good decision.'”

Demos Promotes Participatory Democracy

Secretary of the State Candidate Criticizes Exploratory Committees

In our view exploratory committees represent a loophole in the current public financing law. Candidates can collect and spend huge sums in the name of exploring runs for office. On the other hand, unilateral disarmament can be risky.

New Haven Register: ‘Unofficial’ candidates criticized <read>

Gerry Garcia, Democratic candidate for secretary of the state, said candidates who use exploratory committees, rather than candidate committees, are “gaming” the system by getting around contribution limits.

Garcia is among a handful of candidates who have officially declared interest in a specific statewide office. For governor, that group includes Democrat former House Speaker James A. Amann, and Republicans Lt. Gov. Michael Fedele, Scott Merrell and Tom Foley.

Democrats with exploratory committees looking at the gubernatorial race include Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, former Stamford Mayor Dannel P. Malloy, state Sen. Gary LeBeau of East Hartford, Ridgefield First Selectman Rudy Marconi and Ned Lamont, the 2006 Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, while House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero is also weighing his options.

Garcia, in a statement, asked that his fellow Democrats officially commit to the public financing system and declare their candidacies. An official candidate for governor who wants to qualify for public financing has to raise $250,000 in $100 increments.

Those in exploratory committees can accept individual contributions up to $375.

In our view exploratory committees represent a loophole in the current public financing law. Candidates can collect and spend huge sums in the name of exploring runs for office. We can see the need for a couple thousand for exploring a run for the legislature or perhaps a low six figure number in exploring a run for Governor, but in our understanding an almost unlimited amount can be spent “exploring”.

On the other hand, unilateral disarmament can be risky. At least on the Democratic side, the leading candidates or Governor are all doing it. Would Bysiewicz, Malloy, or Lamont be handicapped by individually choosing to end their exploratory committees? Or would they gain votes.

West Hartford: Mayor Supports Audits – Would Like State To Pay

“The audit is being done for the best of reasons to protect..to make sure democracy is being done accurately.”

Local Online News Video report on West Hartford post-election audit counting <video>

Featured in the video is West Hartford Mayor, Scott Slifka.

The audit is being done for the best of reasons to protect..to make sure democracy is being done accurately.

Like CTVotersCount, the Mayor believes that the State should pay for the audits:

Disappointing that we have been asked to pay for it. We have requested of the Secretary of the State that here office pay for it.

We believe that the 10% of districts chosen to be counted are checking the system for the whole State, not just their local community. The audits are a small investment to pay to provide confidence and deterrence to the voters that our system is protected from errors and fraud. The audits cost about 10% of the cost of the paper ballots printed for each election. Last year’s Presidential post-election audit cost about $72,000 state wide. West Hartford audited three districts out of the sixty chosen statewide for $2,300.

Of course, even thought the Secretary of the State supports the audits, they are mandiated by the legislature.

Update: Looking at West Hartford’s 2010 budget, the entire budget for the Registrar of Voters is $259,662 and for the town, 212,571,688.

More On Chain-Of-Custody

Last month we commented on reports of chain-of-custody problems in Haddam and on a Courant Editorial on the need for two people of opposing parties whenever ballots are accessed. The problem goes deeper. We sent the following letter to the Courant in the interest of using the breach in Haddam as an educational opportunity. I will post it here, since the time has passed for its potential publication (and the Courant will not publish letters previously published elsewhere) :

To the Editor,

The voters of Connecticut should be concerned with the chain-of-custody of ballots as stated in your editorial, “Only One Party Observed Haddam Vote Count” (Nov 23, 2009). Ballots are required to precisely determine the outcome of close elections and to provide credibility to post-election audits. This particular case is unique in that the breach became public and that it may be a violation of the law.

The law requires that ballots be sealed for fourteen days after an election. Ironically, the post-election audits cannot begin until the fifteenth day after an election. Audit observers have regularly reported violations of chain-of-custody procedures. In Connecticut, election regulations and procedures cannot be enforced.

For voters to have confidence there must be no opportunity for compromise; it is critical that ballots be protected from clandestine access. Ballots are usually sealed in bags or containers, however, more protection is needed. Los Alamos scientists have reported that such a seal can be defeated and replaced with a counterfeit in a median of 43 seconds. In Connecticut, ballots are often held in a room with single key access, with the key available to either registrar, frequently to any official in the Registrars’ Office. The storage is often a room in town hall, the Registrars’ Office, or a hallway cabinet. In other states, ballots are held in vaults, with video surveillance, and uniformed guards

Clearly stronger chain-of-custody protections for our ballots are required.

Luther Weeks

References:

Coalition Citizen Election Audit Coalition reports showing chain-of-custody lapses:
http://www.CTElectionAudit.orgIn particular: http://www.ctelectionaudit.org/?page_id=74

Los Alamos scientists’ report: https://ctvoterscount.org/CTVCdata/TamperIndSeals.mht

NY-23: Richard Hayes Phillips Corrects The Record

The author has since learned that only the cumulative results for each contest, not the results for each election district, are actually certified to the State. Thus it is not strictly correct that these negative numbers appeared in the certified results. But they did appear in the district (precinct) totals from which the certified cumulative results were derived.

Last week Richard Hayes Phillips reported in an article in the Governeur Times “Impossible Numbers Certified in NY-23” as we carried here.

This week in a letter to the editor, he corrects the record based on further information: Letter to the Editor on NY-23 Results <read>

It was reported last week that the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections had certified impossible numbers for the special election in New York’s 23^rd Congressional District. Just hours before certification, I received from the Board, in a .pdf file, by e-mail, their results for each election district (precinct). These contained, for six election districts (four in Canton, one in Massena, and one in Oswegatchie), more votes counted for the candidates than the reported number of ballots cast and, therefore, negative numbers for “blank ballots” or “undervotes.” These negative numbers actually appear, in a computer printout, in the .pdf file

The author has since learned that only the cumulative results for each contest, not the results for each election district, are actually certified to the State. Thus it is not strictly correct that these negative numbers appeared in the certified results. But they did appear in the district (precinct) totals from which the certified cumulative results were derived.

In response to the article, the Board of Elections, as always, has provided the data needed to analyze the situation. Only the numbers for “total” ballots cast and for “blank” ballots have changed for the six districts in question; the vote totals for the candidates remain the same. For comparative analysis, the Board has provided a breakdown of how many voters in each district voted in which manner (machine, absentee, affidavit, or special federal).

A comparison of these data confirms that there were enough “machine” voters (actual voters at the polls) to account for the vote counts for the individual candidates in these six districts. This is what my audit of the poll books had shown, as reported in the original article…

Thus, neither the “whole number” of ballots cast, nor the negative numbers for “blank votes” or undervotes, e-mailed to me by the Board of Elections just hours before certification, can possibly be explained in five of six cases. No vote counting system should ever produce negative numbers. If negative numbers for “blank” votes are allowed by the computer program, “phantom votes” can be entered into the count, and this is a grievous flaw in the system.

Reporting Error In Westport News Story

This report from Westport deserves attention because it is actual reporting by a reporter at the audit, it makes one significant error, and it has been linked from some national voting news sites.

Story in Westport News: Audit ensures election accuracy <read>

In the last couple of weeks there have been perhaps a dozen local news stories covering the post-election audits around the state. For the most part we have not posted or commented on them here as they are usually reports prior to the audits and authored by the local Registrars covering the basic facts of the audit and the town’s selection. Yet this report from Westport deserves attention because it is actual reporting by a reporter at the audit, it makes one significant error, and it has been linked from some national voting news sites. (As some readers may not be aware, CTVotersCount is a member of the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition where I also serve as Executive Director.)

From the Westport News:

There were 12 people who had a hand in the audit, including the town’s Democratic and Republican registrars of voters, Nita Cohen and Judy Raines. Some people had the task of counting the ballots. Others had to watch them count. Two monitors hired by the state had to watch people count and also watch the people watching them count.

In fact:

Rather than state officials, the two observers present were unpaid volunteer observers from the Coalition, which itself is entirely an unpaid volunteer operation.
Checking with our observers and the Westport Registrars’ Office, we understand that accurate information was given to the reporter and that the registrar was misquoted in the story.
With perhaps 130 audit observations to date, our observers have never reported the presence of an observer from the State. The State, as far as we know, does not observe the local audits and bases all of its reports on data supplied from the registrars and investigations not open to the public:

The next step will be to forward the report to the University of Connecticut for analysis of the accuracy of the tabulators. After their analysis is written, it’s then sent back to the Secretary of State. Finally, it’s passed along to the State Elections Enforcement Commission.

Our observers also report precious few sightings of the media at audits, for that we appreciate the Westport News for sending a reporter.

Based on past observations, Westport election officials deserve applause for their consistent performance in the organization of their audits. Past observation reports show that many towns fall short in conducting audits in a way that provides data sufficient to judge the accuracy of election results.

Registrars in Westport, like those in many towns are concerned with the costs of the audit:

All of this was required by the state. Most of it was paid for by the town. The total cost came to $1,388…In an interview with the Westport News, Cohen noted just how important everyone’s role is in an audit and other aspects of elections, despite the tediousness and “labor intensive” nature of the process.

We believe the audits are a small. critical, incremental investment. The statewide cost of audits represents less than 10% of the costs of printing the paper ballots. We estimate $72,000 in Nov 2008 for local audit activities vs. more than $750,000 for ballots in that election. Both of these costs are small when compared to the total costs of conducing elections, not to mention the risk to democracy if the voters intentions are not consistently realized in the official election results. In Federal elections billions of dollars and thousands of lives are at stake. In local elections millions of dollars, eminent domain issues, education, and quality of life are at stake

Secretary Bysiewicz, Senator Dodd, and Representative Courtney Support MOVE Act

We point out that our troops are dedicated to defending democracy. When their votes can be changed or coerced because they are neither secure nor secret, it goes beyond their ballots, it threatens the election results, and the very democracy that they and their predecessors sacrifice to preserve. Here we see not a conspiracy, but a “domino theory” where prototypes not fully evaluated, lead to acceptance for the military and overseas voter, and then justified for all voting because it “seems to work, the voters like it, and election officials like it”. In other words, faith-based voting integrity.

In a press conference today, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, Senator Chris Dodd, and Representative Joe Courtney expressed strong support for the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act <Press Release>

While we support our troops and their commitment to democracy, we do not support the MOVE Act in its current form. We object to one provision of the Act passed by the Senate, passed by the House, and signed by the President. Like the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), the MOVE Act is well intended, aimed a solving a real problem, yet has unintended consequences.

The problem of military and overseas voting has several good solutions that have been used in some states and localities and have been effective. The MOVE Act incorporates many of those good solutions. Yet, it also authorizes pilots of electronic submission of actual votes electronically. As of this time there is no known proven method for the security and secrecy of electronic submission of ballots, no proven method of auding such votes, and the bill contains no mandate for the evaluation of pilots for security and secrecy.

We have written about this issue several times, followed the technical issues with other advocates, security experts, and computer scientists. Most disappointing is that so many members of Congress supported the bill so quickly, without technical scrutiny. Most surprising is Secretary Bysiewicz support after her office spent so much time this spring working to remove electronic voting provisions from a military voting bill before the Connecticut Legislature (The bill was eventually changed to eliminate the electronic voting, but never considered by either house).

References:

Our coverage of the MOVE Act and reaction of advocates in MA to a similar bill.

Technologists Statement on Internet Voting

The Internet and Voting: Worth Doing Right, by Barbara Simons

Secretary Bysiewicz endorsement of a bill that specifically prohibited electronic submission of ballots

Secretary Bysiewicz testimony against the electronic voting provisons of the bill in CT this year

The latest from Verified Voting on the MOVE Act: <Newsletter>

Modified language from the MOVE Act was included in the National Defense Authorization Act (HR 2647, now Public Law No: 111-84) signed by President Obama on October 28. The new law includes, as Section 589, a provision for Technology Pilot Projects, which could include the electronic submission of voted ballots. The new language in the engrossed bill does call on the National Institute of Standards and Technology to work together with the Election Assistance Commission to develop “best practices or standards” within 180 days of the bill’s signing. While the law does not establish any requirement to adhere to such standards or best practices, nor is there a process for determining such adherence in proposed projects. EAC and NIST have announced their intention to produce best practices for Military and Overseas voters by the end of the calendar year. Verified Voting advocates a more thorough security review of any proposed use of the internet for the transmission of voted ballots.

Bills In CT, MD, WA, Risk Security Despite DoD Concerns

Documented threats to the internet and military networks

Update: 12/22/2009 Sec. Bysiewwicz Ob-Ed <read>

Some may say that these changes should have been made a long time ago. I agree. This is a change I and many of my fellow Secretaries of State have sought at the federal level for years, and is similar to a bill I proposed in the Connecticut General Assembly this past legislative session.

I also recognize, however, that we must step gingerly when allowing the electronic transfer of ballot materials to any voters, so as not to compromise the integrity and security of our elections. Still, the MOVE Act is a giant step forward that will guarantee that our brave Military men and women serving their country overseas will have the opportunity to use the right they are putting their lives on the line to defend. I look forward to implementing it in 2010.

Courant: Ballot Access Should Require Two People Of Opposing Parties

“The process was corrupted. When you go by yourselves, just you two, it gives the appearance of impropriety.”

We believe that ballots cannot be trusted unless there is a strong chain of custody, one critical part of that is that all access should be by at least two people and of opposing parties, and opposing interests in primaries. The Courant is right on in their editorial covering the Haddam situation <read>

when town offices were closed for Veterans Day, head election moderator Marge DeBold, a Democrat, found a clerical error in the absentee vote count that added an additional vote to Ms. Houlton’s total. That extra vote would throw the results into a tie, which would require a runoff election. The following day, Democratic Registrar Pat Hess authorized Ms. DeBold and Town Clerk Ann Huffstetler, also a Democrat, to open the sealed envelopes containing the ballots to review the tally sheets and amend the recount.

But there were no Republicans present. That was wrong…

Mr. Harris, the initial winner of the recount, summed it up well: “The process was corrupted. When you go by yourselves, just you two, it gives the appearance of impropriety.”

The Courant’s earlier coverage and our comments <read> Coaliton reports documenting breaches in the chain of custody <read> The issue goes beyond a documented instance of two people from the same party accessing the ballots. The issue includes the risks of single individuals having access to a single key needed to access the ballots – leaving them vulnerable to unauthorized access.