CTVotersCount.org

The Day: New London has problem with math

Actually it is more a problem of complexity and communications

New London has problem with math <read> Actually it is more a problem of complexity and communications:

The decision to consolidate seven districts into three was made late last spring as a cost-cutting move. Like every other city and town in the state, money is tight and New London is looking to trim wherever it can find savings.

The state’s statutory requirement for municipal polling places is that there be at least one for each House district. And since New London is split between the 39th and 40th districts, the city’s minimum is two, but in consolidating, it opted for three for convenience.

The savings amount to about $12,000 for each election, including costs for setting up ballots, programming voting machines, adding telephone lines, and paying poll workers. Rather than the usual 16 machines in operation in New London on Election Day, now there will be eight. And the typical contingent of about 60 poll workers will be halved to 3…

The only two districts that are physically moving are the 3rd and 4th, which previously voted at Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School. The problem is, they’re moving to different places. The old 3rd is going to the new 1st, which casts ballots at New London High School. (In the past, the high school was the place to vote for the old 1st, 2nd, and 3rd districts.) And the 4th is going to the new 2nd, which used to be home to the 4th, 5th and 7th districts. So if used to vote at Bennie Dover, you need to figure out where you’re going on Nov. 3rd…

The registrar’s map delineating the new districts is virtually impossible to read, and the problem is compounded because in some neighborhoods, the odd-numbered side of a street votes in one district while the even-numbered households vote in another.

Soldiers to Choose Risking Democracy on Electronic Voting

The purpose of the secret ballot is not primarily to protect the voter of the ballot, but to protect all voters, and to protect our Democracy.

In a letter to the NC State Board of Elections, the Federal Voting Assistance Program has recommended that individual soldiers be left to determine the viability of returning their votes by email. Thanks to N.C. Voter for this story <read>

Until secure electronic transmission of voted ballots has been established, we recommend that States allow voters to return static copies of voted ballots through available electronic means. However, the decision to send a voted ballot by unsecure electronic means must rest with the individual voter based on the voter’s desire to cast his or her vote electronically or to ensure the secrecy of their ballot.

We see some problems with this.

Very few soldiers are in a position to assess the security of sending their votes over the internet. Its unlikely many are computer scientists or security experts, unlikely that many are in a position to evaluate the network they use or would have an opportunity to consider the Technologists’ Statement On Internet Voting
Even the risky, questionable amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill only includes the possibility of pilot programs.
Finally, the purpose of the secret ballot is not primarily to protect the voter of the ballot, but to protect all voters, and to protect our Democracy. Its not just my loss if my vote is lost or changed its everyone’s.

How Much Are Election Officials Paid In Norwalk?

“This is a little more than we paid in the past but is in line with the pay rate for the temporary workers hired by the Parks Department for giving out beach stickers this summer. It seems to us that it would be discriminatory to have different rates of pay for equivalent office work at City Hall.”

Story in the Hour: Part-time workers hired by registrar may get pay hike <read>

The argument for a raise seem to make sense:

“We also need to hire part-time staff for the period before the election. We are proposing a rate of $15 per hour for our deputy registers and experienced staff and a rate of $12 for any necessary new or less experienced staff,” wrote Republican Registrar Karen Doyle Lyons and Democratic Registrar Stuart W. Wells in an overview of the proposed pay scale. “This is a little more than we paid in the past but is in line with the pay rate for the temporary workers hired by the Parks Department for giving out beach stickers this summer. It seems to us that it would be discriminatory to have different rates of pay for equivalent office work at City Hall.”

Park workers presumably have a somewhat steadier, longer term job.

Here are the rates in Norwalk for election day officials:

The pay rates for election poll workers, meanwhile, would remain unchanged from 2008: Head moderator ($500); assistant moderator ($400); polling place moderator ($300); alternate moderator ($275); assistant registrar ($200); checker ($175); tabulator tender ($175); ballot clerk ($175); demonstrator ($175); interpreter (additional $75).

Presuming a ballot clerk works 16 hours @$175 that works out to just under $11 per hour, not including training time. Yet, poll workers have an even less steady job with very very long hours.

TIME: Galbraith: How the Afghan Election Was Rigged

“Once fraud occurs on the scale of what took place in Afghanistan, it is impossible to untangle.”

We are lucky to hear from Mr. Gailbrath. Had he not been fired, he might have continued to keep quiet

Time article, How the Afghan Election Was Rigged <read> by Peter W. Galbraith, formerly deputy special representative of the Secretary-General of the U.N. in Afghanistan

No one will ever know how Afghans voted in their country’s presidential elections on Aug. 20, 2009. Seven weeks after the polling, the U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) is still trying to separate fraudulent tallies from ballots. In some provinces, many more votes were counted than were cast. E.U. election monitors characterize 1.5 million votes as suspect, which would include up to one-third of the votes cast for incumbent President Hamid Karzai. Once fraud occurs on the scale of what took place in Afghanistan, it is impossible to untangle.

Afghanistan’s fraudulent elections complicate President Obama’s job as he weighs a recommendation from General Stanley McChrystal, his top commander there, to send as many as 40,000 additional troops to support a beefed-up counterinsurgency strategy. But for that strategy to work, the U.S. needs a credible Afghan partner, which Afghanistan’s elections now seem unlikely to produce…

We are lucky to hear from Mr. Gailbrath. Had he not been fired, he might have continued to keep quiet:

Unfortunately, I am unable to provide reassuring answers. Over the past four months, I served as the deputy head of the U.N. mission in Kabul and had a firsthand view of the fraud that plagued Afghanistan’s presidential vote. Each time I proposed actions to deal with it, Kai Eide, the head of the U.N. mission in Afghanistan, overruled me. Like any good subordinate, I respected my boss’s decision, but in private, I told him I thought he was making a mistake in downplaying the fraud. When the press learned of our disagreement (through no fault of ours), U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon removed me from my post.

I recommend reading the entire article, it is not that long. This so called ‘election’ shows an unbelievable disregard for integrity, a very thinly disguised fraud, and a superficial image of democracy.

We can have high degree of certainty that the Afghan elections were not credible. How much worse is this than the uncertainty we often have in our own elections? We need effective monitoring and reporting of all elections. Without effective monitoring and auditing we cannot have confidence in the leaders of our own democracy.

Verified Voting Statement on the Acquisition of Premier Election Solutions

“it raises greater concerns about the security, transparency and cost of elections and creates a profound anti-competitive effect in the shrinking marketplace for voting systems…We can also expect to see substantial increase in vendor control over key contract provisions.”

Update: 12/27/2009 Gainesville editorial: Bad Business <read> For once Florida is leading toward voting integrity:

Corporate mergers can be good for business. But if mergers lead to less competition and innovation, they are not necessarily good for consumers.

This is especially true when the “consumers” are voters and the product voting machines.

Case in point is the recent purchase of Diebold Inc. by Election Systems & Software. The result is that a single company will now make the voting machines used by 92 percent of Florida voters … and by two-thirds of the nation’s voters.

“Each of Florida’s 67 counties must negotiate its own contract with the vendor,” says Dan McCrea, president of Florida Voters Foundation. “With no competition, Florida counties and taxpayers are over a barrel.”

The good news is that state Attorney General Bill McCollum announced ths week that he will conduct an anti-trust investigation of the merger. Given Florida’s embarrassing showing in the 2000 presidential election, the last thing this state needs is to become a captive market for a single voting machine vendor.

Update: 12/19/2009 New York Post: U.S. opens probe of Diebold unit sale -report <read>

he U.S. Department of Justice and 14 states have opened investigations into the sale of Diebold Inc’s (DBD.N) voting machines business to Election Systems & Software that could lead to the unwinding of the September sale, the New York Post said on Saturday.

Update: 11/2/2009: Secretary Bysiewicz letter to Senator Schumer <read>

Update: 10/29/2009 New York Times Editorial: Trust, Antitrust and Your Vote <read>

The interests of voters should be part of this lawsuit. The Justice Department and state attorneys general should consider formally joining the suit, so they can argue that the combination of Election Systems & Software and Diebold would make the voting experience worse and reduce the reliability of election results. The Justice Department’s antitrust division could also make its own attempt to block the sale. The enormous market share that the newly combined company would control should by itself set off anticompetitive alarms.

Since the 2000 presidential election, the public has rightfully been skeptical about how elections are run. We fear that if any one voting machine maker is allowed to dominate the market, there will be even greater reasons to worry about the nation’s flawed voting system.

*********

Our friends at VerifiedVoting have released a statement articulating concerns with the acquistion of Premier Election Solutions by ES&S <read>

The recently announced acquisition of Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold) by its largest competitor, Election Services & Software (ES&S), requires close scrutiny, as it raises greater concerns about the security, transparency and cost of elections and creates a profound anti-competitive effect in the shrinking marketplace for voting systems…

Without competitive alternatives, a post-merger ES&S has jurisdictions over a barrel when it comes to renewing or negotiating new contracts. We can expect higher costs for ongoing services as well as future procurement of voting equipment and support services including ballot programming, printing, equipment maintenance and supplies.

We can also expect to see substantial increase in vendor control over key contract provisions. Contracts between election jurisdictions and voting system vendors have been demonstrated in some instances to present significant barriers to election transparency. Contracts may limit jurisdictions’ access to source code, or restrict their ability to conduct independent evaluations of voting systems performance and security. There are even two known cases of a contract between a county and ES&S containing a provision that stipulated that the terms of the contract itself were confidential. Lacking the negotiating leverage that robust competition provides, counties could face pressures to accept contracts that do not provide sufficient transparency.

The merger will make a risky, expensive situation worse. Connecticut, like most jurisdictions, uses a single vendor for equipment and maintenance. We are also dependent on a single source, our distributor LHS Associates, for memory card programming. A single more dominant vendor portends additional problems. Its quite possible that the optical scanners we own, the AccuVote-OS will be discontinued. Its less likely that there will be a soluntion to our memory card problems. For more on the dangers of outsourcing our elections see the Voters Unite Report and our associated coverage.

A Candidate’s View – Early Voting, Vote-By-Mail

A candidate’s view from FL, where early voting has changed the campaign calendar, increased cost, and perhaps reduced voter knowledge along with costing some voters their votes.

As CTVotersCount readers know, we are concerned with the integrity issues associated with early voting and vote-by-mail including no excuse absentee voting. We are also concerned with the costs of early voting.

Now we have a candidate’s view from FL, where early voting has changed the campaign calendar, increased cost, and perhaps reduced voter knowledge along with costing some voters their votes: <read>

Instead of campaigns intensifying as Election Day nears, candidates have geared up to reach thousands of people voting well in advance of the polls opening. Ballots started hitting the mail on Sept. 18, and more than 57,600 have been sent.

Already, more than 5,980 people have voted by mail in the general election.

“It feels like we’re in the middle of Election Day each day,” said Kathleen Ford, who is running for mayor against Bill Foster…

It doesn’t just affect strategy. It affects the bottom line of campaigns. Being able to effectively reach mail voters makes the campaign more expensive, Ford and Foster said…

Some civic groups have yet to endorse candidates. Community forums and debates are still on tap.

Danner said he somewhat questions the early start to voting, particularly as someone who was out of the public eye without a primary race.

But returning mail ballots later doesn’t necessarily mean better voting.

Of the 701 ballots that arrived too late to be counted in the Sept. 1 primary, 70 percent came from people who received them within four weeks of the election, Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections Deborah Clark said.

The ballots take the place of early voting sites, because the city and Clark decided it would be less costly.

Some of our earlier posts:

Legislature Seriously Considering Fixing Campaign Finance Law

House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, said lawmakers have been busy finishing the budget, but plan to seriously consider addressing the issue.

Update: 11/25/2009: Rell Summons Lawmakers; Proposes Campaign Fix <CTNewsJunkie>

Rell’s proposal to the legislature amends the Citizens Election Program in accordance with the federal judge’s ruling. Rell’s proposal would eliminate additional qualifying requirements for minor-party and petitioning candidates, provide grants in the same amounts to all candidates, reduce the size of the grants, and delay the increase in the grant amounts until 2014.

Rep. James Spallone, D-Essex, said he thinks the most prudent thing to do would be to eliminate the reversion clause or what many have referred to as the “time bomb,” which returns the fundraising system back to the way it was before 2005.

By eliminating the reversion clause it gives the legislature time to react properly to a decision by the Appeals Court, Spallone said. “I think its really important not to take guidance from one trial judge.”

Either the Second Circuit can reverse the lower court’s decision, uphold it, or reverse it in part or uphold it in part. By repealing simply the reversion clause it gives “us time to react properly,” Spallone said.

That being said he welcomed the governor’s interest in working together on the issue.

*****************
Update: 10/22/2009 Government Elections and Administration Committee schedules forum. <CTNewsJunkie> <Aldon Hynes> I was there. It seems the Legislature has three choices:

Leave the law alone or make portions of the law severable.
Change the law to improve 3rd-party/independent provisions and perhaps other provisions
Change the law to completely level the playing field and fix other portions to clearly meet all the Judge’s issues in the ruling.

We were also present at the forum. Going part way, option 2, risks not going far enough and complicates the legal challenges, providing evidence that the Legislature may believe the current law is unfair. Going all the way would risks being able to restrict portions of the law in the future, and risks potential spending increases. Doing nothing increases the risks that the 2010 election will be disrupted by a sudden stop to the law. (Some candidates would presumably have public $ and would be then able to raise unlimited funds, while others would no longer be able to apply for and receive public funds).

Update: 10/12/2009: Government Elections and Administration Committee schedules forum. CTNewsJunkie story: Legislative Forum on Campaign Finance Reform <read>

Update: 10/11/2009: An Op-Ed in the Courant, retired Superior Court Judge Robert Satter gives his opinion, Election Law Needs Change – Not Defense, <read>

Blumenthal argued that such criteria were necessary to save the state from paying campaign grants to small, splinter parties. Underhill refuted that concern by pointing to the experience of Maine and Arizona, which have public campaign finance laws with no additional qualifying criteria imposed on minor party candidates. Neither of those states have had an undue number of minor party candidates qualify for campaign funding.

Underhill noted that the bill Gov. M. Jodi Rell submitted to the legislature did not contain different criteria for minor and major party candidates. The judge implied in his opinion that such a change in the law would go a long way to making it constitutional.

Underhill’s opinion is factually and legally so sound that an appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals appears fruitless. But the appeal itself casts the pall of legal uncertainty over state funding for campaigns in 2010, which for the first time will include paying for gubernatorial races.

I spent two weeks in Judge Satter’s court about 30 years ago, fortunately as Jury Forman. It was fascinating and informative, it gave me an appreciation of the Jury system.

Once again CTVotersCount.org has taken no position on the legality of the current law. We focus on election integrity. We have members on both sides.

**********

According to an AP Story in the News Times, Fed ruling puts Conn. candidates in limbo, <read>

“We really don’t have the luxury to wait around and see what happens in the courts,” said

Beth Rotman, director of the Citizens Election Program.

“My preference is that the legislature move quickly, expeditiously and fix the issue identified in a special session in the coming months,” she said.

House Speaker Christopher Donovan, D-Meriden, said lawmakers have been busy finishing the budget, but plan to seriously consider addressing the issue. He did not provide a time frame for possible legislative action..

House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, who has formed an exploratory committee, said like the other candidates, he’s wondering what’s going to happen. Cafero said the General Assembly should have included a clause in the original bill, which Republicans suggested, that would have allowed the overall program to continue if a judge found particular sections unconstitutional.

Sen. Gary LeBeau, D-East Hartford, who is exploring a run for governor as a Democrat, said he expects his fellow legislators will fix the public financing law and somehow allow the program to continue. The question, he said, is how broadly they intend to intervene.

Earlier coverage: <here> <and here>

Greenwich Registrar and Deputy Secretary Mara Discuss Today’s Audit

“We have to make sure these machines are working properly and reliably and counting the votes,” Ms. Mara said.

We would prefer audits that were intended to do more than just check the machines, that they also were intend to verify the election results as well.

Acorn-online, ‘Short and sweet’: Voting results to be audited, <read>

Deputy Secretary of the State Leslie Mara told the Post the goal of the audits is to confirm that the counts registered by the optical scanner voting machines match a hand recount of the ballots.

“We have to make sure these machines are working properly and reliably and counting the votes,” Ms. Mara said.

In the cases where the audit discovers a discrepancy between the machine count and the hand recount, it is not necessarily evidence of fraud. In fact, Ms. Mara said there have been no major cases of that discovered and, generally, there is an innocent explanation for what happened.

“We’ve been fortunate,” Ms. Mara said. “Perhaps we will see a one-vote discrepancy or maybe something like someone forgot to count an envelope of ballots and those are discrepancies that are easily explained. We know that the districts are careful in the first place and are getting accurate counts. Sometimes there is human error despite the best of intentions and these audits get to the bottom of that.”

The process is expected to be a simple one that will be completed rather quickly. Sharon Vecchiola, the town’s Democratic registrar of voters, told the Post on Tuesday that the hand recount will be “short and sweet” and likely will only take an hour to do. Not only was turnout low for the primary, with only 67 votes in District 4, 148 in District 5 and 83 in District 10 needing to be counted, but hand recounts are nothing new.

In fact Ms. Vecchiola said the town has been audited every single year since the optical scan voting machines have been used starting in 2006. The town even had two last year, for the presidential election and the primary for the Democratic nomination for the District 4 congressional race where Cos Cob resident Jim Himes defeated former Greenwich resident Lee Whitnum and went on to win the seat from longtime incumbent Republican Christopher Shays.

We would prefer audits that were intended to do more than just check the machines, that they also were intend to verify the election results as well. As stated in the Principles and Best Practices:

Post-election audits must be completed prior to finalizing official election results and must either verify the outcome or, through a 100% recount, correct the outcome.

And by the League of Women Voters Audit Recommendations:

The audit process should begin as soon as possible after the initial tallies recorded by the voting system are reported. The audit should be completed prior to declaration of the final official results, and the audit should confirm the outcome or lead to a recount that determines the outcome.

Not every count has gone well in the past. As the Coalition Report of the November 2008 Audit stated:

We conclude, based on our observations and analysis of audit reports submitted to the Secretary of the State that the November post-election audits still do not inspire confidence…Among our greatest concerns are the discrepancies between machine counts and hand-counts reported to the Secretary of the State by several municipalities. In many cases, these discrepancies are not thoroughly and reasonably explained. We believe that the ad-hoc counting procedures used by many municipalities were not sufficient to count ballots accurately and efficiently

‘Short and sweet’: Voting results to be audited

Siegleman Election Fraud Claims Another Victim

Once again, justice delayed in justice denied. Elections stolen, but not immediately redressed even worse.

This is the case of election fraud in the reelection bid of Alabama Governor Don Seigelman. <previous coverage> Lets recap:

The 1st victims were the people of Alabama. Governor Seigelman was not reelected due to fraud in the election.
The next victim was Don Seigelman who, instead of being reinstated as Governor, was prosecuted, convicted, and jailed, based on trumped up charges and prosecutorial misconduct.
The Governor was released from jail but may face a new trial.
It seems the American People and the rule of law are also victims. So far no body has been punished for misconduct.
Most recently a whistle blower, Tamarah Grimes, sent Attorney General Eric Holder a letter detailing more misconduct in the case. Three days later Ms. Grimes was fired, becoming the latest victim: <read>

Leura Canary, U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama, wrote press releases about the Don Siegelman case that were distributed under the signature of assistant prosecutor Louis Franklin. Also, Canary regularly had two assistants communicate her suggestions about the Siegelman case to Franklin.

All of this took place after Canary had announced her recusal from the Siegelman case. And they are two of many stark examples of prosecutorial misconduct outlined in a letter dated June 1, 2009, from whistleblower Tamarah Grimes to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.

Eight days after writing the letter, Grimes was fired from her position as a paralegal for the Department of Justice in Montgomery, Alabama. So far, there is no indication that Holder has taken any action in the matter.

Once again, justice delayed in justice denied. Elections stolen, but not immediately redressed even worse.

Absentee Ballots Can Be Decisive – yet Unaudited

“Before the absentee ballots were counted last week, Valle led with 266 votes tallied on the voting machines, and Martinez was second with 248 votes. In third place was Valle’s partner Christina Ayala with 245 votes and Manuel Ayala, who was running with Martinez, trailed with 223 votes. But after the absentee ballots were counted, Martinez emerged as the victor with 356 votes and Manuel Ayala, who received 106 absentee votes, leapt to second place slot.”

Story in ConnPost, Primary loser declines to challenge absentees, <read>

Before the absentee ballots were counted last week, Valle led with 266 votes tallied on the voting machines, and Martinez was second with 248 votes. In third place was Valle’s partner Christina Ayala with 245 votes and Manuel Ayala, who was running with Martinez, trailed with 223 votes.

But after the absentee ballots were counted, Martinez emerged as the victor with 356 votes and Manuel Ayala, who received 106 absentee votes, leapt to second place slot.

Valle, the only City Council candidate endorsed by the Working Families Party, said this week that she finds it unusual that so many absentee ballots were filed, but does not plan to challenge the primary results. “I’m not going to go there. November 3rd is another election. November 3rd is around the corner,” she said.

“I won at the polls,” Valle said of the voting machine totals. “For me, it says a lot. In regard to the ABs, time will tell,” she added, cryptically.

Still, Valle admitted she was concerned that voters might be confused by the third slate of candidates on the ballot and not realize that they can vote for her — regardless of what political party they belong to.

We point out several issues that this situation brings up:

Absentee ballots can be decisive.
Ballot layout is important. Perhaps the location of the candidate or organization by party on ballots in Connecticut was the critical item.
Perhaps the Democratic Party or the endorsed candidates did a lot of work getting out the absentee vote.
As we and others have pointed out, there are many issues and risks with any type of mail-in voting, including absentee voting.
Finally, also as we have pointed out before, most absentee ballots are not subject to the Connecticut Post-Election Audit Law – an opening for errors to go undetected and an opportunity for fraud. And as we have learned from the Minnesota recount, just recounting absentee ballots is half the job – the other half is reviewing and perhaps correcting the rejection and acceptance of absentee ballots.