CTVotersCount.org

Bill Passes House To Help Track Absentee Ballots

“The bill, passed by voice vote, directs the Election Assistance Commission to reimburse states for costs related to establishing absentee ballot tracking programs for federal elections. It does not require states to set up such systems.”

AP Article: House Acts To Improve Absentee Ballot Tracking <read>

The bill, passed by voice vote, directs the Election Assistance Commission to reimburse states for costs related to establishing absentee ballot tracking programs for federal elections. It does not require states to set up such systems.

These tracking systems would allow voters to check, either through the Internet or by calling an automated number, whether an elections office has sent out a ballot, whether the completed ballot has arrived back at the registrar’s office, and whether the ballot has been counted.

Sounds like a positive step to close one of the several avenues of lost or rejected absentee ballots that disenfranchise voters who believed they voted and that their vote will be counted. Yet, we wonder if many states will adopt the system without a mandate – setting up a system is the 1st part of the process, the rest is managing and operating the system. In Connecticut that would mean the each town would need to update the system with each received ballot. Without detailed plans its difficult to estimate, but we would expect the bottom line would be a small price to pay yet a difficult proposition to sell.

CTVotersCount is Two Years Old

Thursday marks the 2nd anniversary of CTVotesCount.
Our goals for the blog remain.
As we start our 3rd year, our commitment continues.

Birthdaycake Thursday marks the 2nd anniversary of CTVotesCount. We had been planning the organization and the blog for a couple of months – we launched after a the end of a summer vacation. We wondered if there would be any news during August?. We reported on some recent reports from VerifiedVoting and UConn . Coincidentally, it the Top To Bottom Review commissioned by the Secretary of the State of California was just coming out.

Our goals for the blog remain:

To be a source of Connecticut election integrity news and views
To be a source of national election integrity news and views relevant to Connecticut
To be a repository of that election integrity news, reports, and links for reference
To be relevant, accurate, and interesting.

As we start our 3rd year, our commitment continues:

CTVotersCount.org is dedicated to fairness and confidence in democracy, that election results must accurately reflect the intentions of the voters.

We want every citizen’s vote counted!
To be counted accurately!
And to be counted only once!

Overseas And Military Voting Reform Approved By Senate – With Risky Provision

The Senate approved a amendment to the defiense authorization bill that would speed voting for service members. We have one caution and one concern. We are not alone in our concerns.

The Senate approved a amendment to the defense authorization bill that would speed voting for service members. According to the Army Times <read> (Later the entire bill as amended was passed by the Senate)

The Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, or MOVE Act, would require states that accept federal funds to support elections to set up a streamlined process for service members to register to vote and to request, receive and return absentee ballots.

The use of e-mail and fax to get registered and request ballots would be required, and delivery of completed ballots would have to be done by priority mail or other express service, under terms of the legislation that was attached by voice vote to S 1390, the Senate’s version of the 2010 defense authorization bill…

The legislation seeks to take advantage of technology to resolve problems with regular mail delivery that are part of the reason why military members, their families and other U.S. citizens living overseas have problems voting — but technology can’t solve everything.

In an attempt to ensure that a completed ballot gets counted after someone has gone through all of the effort to register and request a blank ballot, the bill would require, under most circumstances, that a state deliver ballots at least 45 days before a federal election and count ballots that are postmarked on election day or earlier up to 10 days after the election is over.

We have one caution and one concern.

Our caution is that the 45 day ballot requirement will likely require that elections and primaries be separated by more time than in the past. Minnesota Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie pointed this out in an interview on Minnesota Public Radio on Wednesday. It is his opinion that September primaries would need to be moved to August. We don’t think this is a reason not to assist overseas and military voters, but something election officials need to be concerned with.

Our concern is with a provision in the law which requires a pilot of internet voting. We would rather have a test than a pilot program – a pilot program implies actual votes. Such a test should require extensive review and comment before and after by computer scientists and security experts. We see no mention of such criteria in the bill which includes a list of criteria under “Design And Conduct” <amendment text> (See the section starting with: “SEC. 589. )

We are not alone in our concerns. Consider the bill endorsed by Secretary of the State Bysiewicz and its prohibition of internet voting. And the Technologists Statement on Internet Voting.

We have nothing against internet voting other than that nobody has demonstrated that it is safe. We have noting against a test if it is evaluated by technologists. We do object to pilot projects that involve actual votes and with no technical scrutiny required.

Update: 11/11/2009. MA Passes similar bill, advocates react <read>

BOSTON — Voting advocacy groups are raising doubts about a proposal to allow Massachusetts soldiers stationed overseas to return ballots by e-mail.

The measure was included in a veteran’s benefits bill approved by lawmakers on Tuesday. Gov. Deval Patrick signed the bill Wednesday.

John Bonifaz of the group Voter Action said he supports efforts to make it easier for soldiers to cast ballots, but said there is no way to guarantee that e-mailed ballots aren’t lost or computer systems hacked.

He and other advocates say a better way is to allow soldiers to download ballots off the Internet and then mail them in.

He said that’s an improvement on the current system which requires ballots be mailed from Massachusetts, then returned.

Bysewicz Endorses Federal Bill To Improve Military and Overseas Voting

We continue to agree with Secretary Bysiewicz on military and overseas voting. There is room for improvement in ballot access for military and overseas voters. There are several bill in Washington D.C. aimed at improving the situation. This bill provides for sensible actions without moving toward risky internet, fax or email in voting.

Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz, has endorsed Overseas Voting Practical Amendments Act of 2009 [H.R. 1739] sponsored byU.S. Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D14-New York) and Michael Honda (D15-California) <Press Release>

We continue to agree with Secretary Bysiewicz on this issue. There is much room for improvement in ballot access for military and overseas voters. There are several bill in Washington D.C. aimed at improving the situation. This bill provides for sensible actions without moving toward risky internet, fax or email in voting. <The full bill text etc.> We especially note:

Nothing in this Act or in any amendment made by this Act may be construed to authorize the Presidential designee under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act or any State or local election official to require or authorize any absent uniformed services voter or overseas voter under such Act or any other individual to use the Internet to cast a ballot in any election for public office.

Endorsing in a letter, the Secretary had several suggestions to further improved the bill <the letter>

In a letter to Congressman Robert Brady(D1-PA), Chairman of the House Administration Committee, Secretary Bysiewicz endorsed the federal legislation by writing that it “…would go a long way toward improving access to the ballot for our military and overseas voters by taking advantage of technological developments, providing greater clarity of procedures for voters and election officials and ensuring consistency among the states. I view H.R. 1739 as a practical next step in providing needed clarification and an update of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, a next step that will greatly enhance the access of our military and overseas citizens to the ballot without undue burden or cost to states.”

A Better Alternative To Election Day Registration?

An alternative is available that would eclipse Election Day Registration (EDR), while fixing our inaccurate voter registration databases and save government expenses.

Update: New York Times Editorial endorses

Update: 07/24/2009: New York Times Editorial endorses <read>

Bolder action is needed to impose a higher standard on the states. Senator Charles Schumer, the Democrat of New York who is chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, is at work on a national voter registration modernization bill. To be effective, it should follow the lead of nations that are far more serious than the United States about getting eligible voters on the rolls — and have the registration rates to prove it.

******

An alternative is available that would eclipse Election Day Registration (EDR), while fixing our inaccurate voter registration databases and save government expenses.

A National Journal Article, Looking Abroad For Answers On Voter Registration, summarizes the case and points to recent reports covering the possibilities of making the government responsible that all voters are registered. <read>

As lawmakers on Capitol Hill mull the best way to overhaul the voter registration system, advocacy groups that endorse fixes are pointing overseas for answers.

Unlike the United States, which puts the onus for registering entirely on the voter, many Western democracies put government officials in charge of adding voters to the rolls, according to a recent study by New York University School of Law’s Brennan Center for Justice. These include Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Peru and Sweden.

It seems that there are advantages that both progressives and conservatives would find in this alternaive:

A recent PIRG report makes the case that the nation’s current, paper-based registration system is not only inefficient and error-riddled, but burdens election administrators with excessive costs. The survey of 100 counties, conducted by PIRG’s Education Fund, found that election officials spent more than $33 million in the 2008 election on simply populating and correcting the voter rolls.

Voting rights advocates argue that registration snafus were the No. 1 problem plaguing last year’s election. Certainly registration controversies dominated the headlines, with progressive activists complaining that eligible voters were blocked from registering and voting, and conservatives arguing that ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, was fraudulently registering ineligible voters.

Putting registration in the hands of government officials would solve both problems, said Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center’s voting rights and elections project. The group’s recent analysis of voter registration systems around the world points to data sharing — capturing voter information from government records used for other purposes — as the most promising model internationally.

ACTION: Ask Your Representative To Co-Sponsor Election Confidence “Holt” Bill

Rush Holt introduced a new and improved Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, H.R. 2894. There are 77 Co-Sponsors. If you live in the 2nd, 3rd, or 5th District, please ask your Representative: Courtney, DeLauro, or Murphy to add their names as Co-Sponsors.

Update 7/23/2009: We note that Joe Courtney has been added to the list of co-sponsors. Thanks to Rep Courtney and those who contacted him. Still time to call and encourage Rep. DeLauro and Rep. Murphy to join the majority of the Connecticut delegation.

*******

Rush Holt introduced a new and improved Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, H.R. 2894. There are 77 Co-Sponsors. If you live in the 2nd, 3rd, or 5th District, please ask your Representative: Courtney, DeLauro, or Murphy to add their names as Co-Sponsors. Here is a convenient form courtesy of Verified Voting: Email Letter To Your Representative

CTVotersCount appreciates Representatives John Larson and Jim Himes for signing on as initial co-sponsors. You can use the form above to think them.

Representative Holt has been working for several years to provide the voting integrity missing for our elections and the Help America Vote Act. This Act improves over bills previously proposed in several areas. <ref> <ref> <ref> It will require every vote to be on a voter marked paper ballot! Advocates appreciate changes which make the bill stronger, election officials will appreciate some extended deadlines and other changes making it more palatable.

Connecticut will benefit because H.R. 2894 will:

Insure that all states conduct audits and use voter marked paper ballots. This will increase the integrity of all elections. This will help assure that the intentions of Connecticut voters are not thwarted by inadequate procedures and equipment in other states which could compromise the integrity of presidential votes nationwide or the balance in Congress.

Pay the cost of even year audits in Connecticut. Connecticut has completed several comprehensive post-election audits of our optical scanners. One of the strongest objections by registrars and towns was that audits are unfunded mandates. The 2007 and 2008 audits in Connecticut were reimbursed by HAVA funding. This bill will assure that audits in even years will continue to be funded by Federal funds.

Insure that Connecticut has Independent Audits. Connecticut’s audit law falls short of this bill’s standard for independent audits. Independent audits are supported by The League of Women Voters, Common Cause, The Brennan Center for Justice, Verified Voting, Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz, and CTVotersCount.

Other key provisions as summarized by Verified Voting <read>

The Press Release:

News from
Representative Rush Holt
12th District, New Jersey
http://www.holt.house.gov

For Immediate Release Contact: Zach Goldberg
June 17, 2009
202-225-5801

HOLT REINTRODUCES VOTER CONFIDENCE AND INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY ACT

Bill Would Require Voter-Verified Paper Ballot and Random Audits

(Washington, D.C.) – Rep. Rush Holt today reintroduced the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, legislation that would create a national standard of voting to help ensure that every vote is recorded and counted as intended. The bill would require paper ballot voting systems accompanied by accessible ballot marking devices and require routine random audits of electronic voting tallies. The bill has 75 cosponsors.

“It is time we stop using elections as beta tests for unreliable electronic voting machines,” Holt said. “The ability to vote is the most important right as it is the right through which citizens secure all other rights. Voters shouldn’t have any doubts about whether their votes count and are counted. Congress should pass a national standard ensuring that all voters can record their votes on paper and requiring that in every election, randomly selected precincts be audited.”

In every federal election that has taken place since the Help America Vote Act was enacted in 2003, citizen watchdog groups have gathered and reported information pertaining to voting machine failures. In the 2004 election, more than 4,800 voting machine were reported to the Election Incident Reporting System, from all but eight states. In the 2006 election, a sampling of voting machine problems gathered by election integrity groups and media reports revealed more than 1,000 such incidents from more than 300 counties in all but 14 states. And in 2008, the Our Vote Live hotline received reports of almost 2,000 voting machine problems in all but 12 states.

While many states and counties have addressed verified voting on their own – jurisdictions serving 10 million voters moved to paper ballot voting systems between 2006 and 2008 alone – in 2008, 19 states (7 complete states, and some number of counties in approximately a dozen other states) conducted completely unauditable elections.

Paperless electronic voting seems more modern and many election officials like it, but it is entirely unverifiable and unauditable. Because voting is secret, only the voter can verify that the vote is recorded properly, and when the only record of the vote is digital the voter cannot do so. Computer scientists say that computers are unreliable without an independent audit mechanism, and without paper ballots there is nothing to audit.

The 2008 U.S. Senate race in Minnesota demonstrated the importance of verified voting. In that race, approximately 3 million voter-marked paper ballots were counted by hand to confirm the result. Of those 3 million ballots, only 14 did not receive a 5-0 unanimous vote of the bipartisan canvassing board. Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie later said that because Minnesota uses a paper ballot voting system, it made it possible to “do the recount quickly, fairly, accurately, and with such a high degree of trust.”

“The clear trend is towards paper ballots. In fact, every jurisdiction that has chosen to change its voting system since 2006 has chosen to use paper ballots with optical scan counting. That should be the standard,”
Holt said.

Cosponsors include: Reps. Neil Abercrombie (HI-1), Jason Altmire (PA-4), Robert Andrews (NJ-1), Tammy Baldwin (WI-2), John Barrow (GA-12), Timothy Bishop (NY-1), Earl Blumenauer (OR-3), Corrine Brown (FL-3), Lois Capps (CA-23), Michael Capuano (MA-8), Christopher Carney (PA-10), Kathy Castor (FL-11), William Lacy Clay (MO-1), Steve Cohen (TN-9), Joseph Crowley (NY-7), Peter DeFazio (OR-4), Michael Doyle (PA-14), Donna Edwards (MD-4), Sam Farr (CA-14), Chaka Fattah (PA-2), Bob Filner (CA-51), Barney Frank (MA-4), Al Green (TX-9), Gene Green (TX-29), Alcee Hastings (FL-23), James Himes (CT-4), Maurice Hinchey (NY-22), Michael Honda (CA-15), Jay Inslee (WA-1), Steve Israel (NY-2), Jesse Jackson Jr. (IL-2), Hank Johnson (GA-4), Marcy Kaptur (OH-9), Ron Klein (FL-22), Leonard Lance (NJ-7), Rick Larsen (WA-2), John Larson (CT-1), Barbara Lee (CA-9), John Lewis (GA-5), Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2), David Loebsack (IA-2), Nita Lowey (NY-18), Carolyn Maloney (NY-14), Eric Massa (NY-29), Jim McDermott (WA-7), James McGovern (MA-3), Mike McIntyre (NC-7), Gregory Meeks (NY-6), George Miller (CA-7), James Moran (VA-8), Jerrold Nadler (NY-8), James Oberstar (MN-8), David Obey (WI-7), John Olver (MA-1), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Frank Pallone (NJ-6), Donald Payne (NJ-10), Thomas Perriello (VA-5), Chellie Pingree (ME-1), Jared Polis (CO-2), Steven Rothman (NJ-9), Linda Sanchez (CA-39), Janice Schakowsky (IL-9), Adam Schiff (CA-29), Jose Serrano (NY-16), Joe Sestak (PA-7), Albio Sires (NJ-13), Adam Smith (WA-9), Pete Stark (CA-13), John Tierney (MA-6), Timothy Walz (MN-1), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20), Henry Waxman (CA-30), Robert Wexler (FL-19), David Wu (OR-1).

Holt’s legislation is supported by a wide range of organizations, including the American Council of the Blind, the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, the Center for Democracy and Election Management at American University, Common Cause, Credo Mobile/Working Assets Democracy Unlimited, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, True Majority, Verified Voting, Voter Action, Arizona Citizens for Fair Elections, Berks County (PA) Democratic Committee, Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota, Clarion County League of Women Voters (PA), Coalition for Peace Action – New Jersey Concerned Voters of Centre County (PA), Connecticut Voters Count Enduring Vote Montana, Florida Voters Coalition, Gathering to Save our Democracy – Tennessee, Georgians for Verified Voting, Green Party of Pennsylvania, Iowans for Voting Integrity, New Era for Virginia, New Yorkers for Verified Voting, Pennsylvania Verified Voting, Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections (SAFE), SAVE Our Votes Maryland, Southern Coalition for Secure Voting State College (PA) Peace Center, The Black Political Empowerment Project (B-PEP), VoteAllegheny (PA), VotePA, Voting Matters – Oregon.

The New York Times Endorsed Holt Bill <read>

Mr. Holt’s bill would require paper ballots to be used for every vote cast in November 2010…

The bill would also require the states to conduct random hand recounts of paper ballots in 3 percent of the precincts in federal elections, and more in very close races. These routine audits are an important check on the accuracy of the computer count.

The bill has several provisions designed to ease the transition for cash-strapped local governments…

The House leadership should make passing Mr. Holt’s bill a priority. Few issues matter as much as ensuring that election results can be trusted.

Email Letter To Your Representative

Is Early Voting A Good Idea For Connecticut?

Connecticut (like the other New England states) is not Minnesota. Most states have county election management, while New England has town election management. We are concerned that it could be a costly, risky proposition. Here are our major reservations:

Last week, we highlighted a commentary by Minnesota Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie. We mentioned our reservations with implementing one of his suggestions for improvement in Connecticut. From Ritchie’s commentary:

Implementing early voting can greatly eliminate the number of people casting absentee ballots and thus reduce the number of rejected absentee ballots.

Connecticut (like the other New England states) is not Minnesota. Most states have county election management, while New England has town election management. At CTVotersCount we are conditionally against* early voting for Connecticut. We are concerned that it could be a costly, risky proposition. Here are our major reservations:

If early voting polling places were set-up with a full complement of election officials using optical scanners and a strong chain of custody it could be reasonably safe. That is a big and costly “if”. Since we have 169 towns, each independently managing their own polling places – each would have to set-up and manage at least one polling place. One would be enough since optical scanners can be setup to handle multiple ballot types, from multiple districts, such as they are now setup in many towns absentee ballot counting. Three days of absentee voting would add about 60% to the current election day costs in the state, putting a highly disproportionate burden on small towns. (Officials frequently complain about the burden of post-election audits, which represent a fraction of the costs of opening 169 polling places for just one day). Another risk/cost of consolidated early voting is that more care and more risk is involved to make sure voters are given the correct ballot and replacements for spoiled ballots.
Managing multiple days of voting and chain-of-custody provides additional opportunities for error or fraud, requiring additional procedures and vigilance. Post-election Audit Observation Audit Reports from the Coalition have shown frequent violations of procedures, including chain-of-custody violations. UConn Memory Card Audits have also show frequent failures in following current procedures. We will remain skeptical that early voting can be secure, until there is a convincing change in following existing procedures.
We have heard proposals that Early Voting could be accomplished by having a voting machine in the “corner” of the Registrar’s or Town Clerk’s office or by having an equivalent of an absentee ballot voted at the Registrar’s or Town Clerk’s office. We find both of these ‘low budget’ options questionable. One of the problems Mark Ritchie is trying to solve for Minnesota with early voting, is decreasing the volume of absentee votes, which are costly and have a high frequency of disenfranchising voters. Voters are disenfranchised primarily because they made an innocent mistake which disqualifies, for good reasons, their ballot from being counted. Absentee voting also disenfranchises voters because they are not offered an opportunity to correct overvotes (unlike ballots submitted by the voter to a scanner). There are also chain-of-custody issues. A scanner in the ‘corner” etc. is insufficient – voting requires a tabulator tender, registration list checkers, and ballot clerks – especially when there are several ballot types being voted in one place. We tend to think of a few absentee ballots, but a more correct assumption is that a large percentage of voters will choose to vote early – their votes will provide the critical margin to many contests.
Finally, early voting shortens current deadlines and increases complexity. Each day of early voting is another day earlier that candidates, ballots, and memory cards must be finalized and petitions completed. Each day of early voting impacts primary dates and the time period between primaries and elections. It extends the window and complexity if a candidate pulls out of a race or becomes incapacitated.

Elections are primarily about democracy – citizens choosing and controlling our government. Voter convenience is a high priority along with security and integrity. Cost and election official convenience are also important considerations. While skeptical, we remain open to the possibility that voters, legislators, and election officials might be willing to pay the price, develop procedures, and manage elections in a way that early voting with integrity would require.

(*) 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 recommended a safe solution. We caution that a particular implementation or law may not meet a reasonable standard of safety.

Mark Ritchie: A recount to make Minnesota proud

“I believe Minnesota has set a new standard of excellence not only in how we administer elections, but also in how we conduct fair and transparent recounts. I am not alone in that belief.”

Update 7/23/2009: Mark Ritchie interview on Minnesota Public Radio, yesterday, after Secretary of the State meeting – comments and calls on recount and future changes in election laws <listen>

********

Minnesota Public Radio commentary by Minnesota Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie <read>

The federal election battles in Florida and Ohio in 2000 and 2004 had done considerable damage to the reputation of election officials and the public’s trust in the validity of our elections. There was a sense of hope that the recount in Minnesota could begin to repair some of that damage and restore faith in our electoral institutions. I believe Minnesota has set a new standard of excellence not only in how we administer elections, but also in how we conduct fair and transparent recounts. I am not alone in that belief.

Much of the credit for the success of the recount goes to the Minnesota lawmakers and elected officials who crafted our elections system and recount procedures

We agree. The Secretary of State also recommended several reforms for Minnesota:

Implementing early voting can greatly eliminate the number of people casting absentee ballots and thus reduce the number of rejected absentee ballots.

We can streamline our absentee balloting system to simplify the process for voters and save local election officials time and money.

We can cross-check our voter registration database with information from the Social Security Administration and Department of Corrections to make sure our voting lists are as up-to-date and accurate as possible.

We can move the state’s primary to an earlier date to ensure that our military personnel overseas have an opportunity to get their ballot back in time to be counted.

All of the above measures were passed by the Legislature this spring but subsequently vetoed.

It is my hope that with the conclusion of the 2008 election there will be a renewed sense of urgency to enact changes that will help us continue to be a national leader in conducting elections. With 483 days to go until the 2010 election, there is not a minute to waste.

Here we generally agree. Yet, Connecticut (and each New England state) is not Minnesota. At CTVotersCount we are conditionally against* early voting for Connecticut. We are concerned that it could be a costly, risky proposition.

Electronic Medical Records vs. Electronic Voting

“There are many wrong ways to make this transition. If history is any indicator, unless a concerted effort is made to require proper protection, the new medical systems will be no better than the insecure voting machines that many states have purchased.”

CTVotersCount has addressed the reasons why our trust in ATM’s cannot be translated into trusting electronic voting <read>. We have also compared evoting to supermaket scanning, gambling machines, and eletric meters.

In a recent blog post Avi Rubin compares the security risks of electronic medical records vs. electronic voting: A vote in favor of electronic medical records (with caution) <read>

We should be concerned:

amid this rush toward new technology, some doctors and several organizations such as Patient Privacy Rights have raised a yellow flag of caution. In this age of Internet hackers and lost laptops, just how secure, they ask, will these computerized medical records be? After all, it’s a lot easier for someone to waltz out of a hospital with a USB stick in their pocket containing 5,000 patient records, than with many boxes containing the equivalent paper records. Moving electronic records online can make them particularly vulnerable.

To some extent, these fears are justified.

But there is a difference. The challenges and risks of electronic voting and electronic medical records are different:

Yet what is true for voting systems is not necessarily true for electronic medical records. The adversarial model in these two applications is completely different. In a voting system, all parties should be viewed as adversarial. Everyone has a stake in the outcome, and there is no reason to believe every software developer, election official, poll worker or voter will refrain from tampering with the process. That doesn’t mean these people are malicious. It just means that we need voting systems that can be trusted, even when the people associated with the process are corrupt.

Contrast that with the medical records scenario. Computerized system designers and builders have every reason to want their technology to be secure, and little or no incentive to undercut this. Vendors will sell more systems if their technology is highly secure. Hospital administrators will seek the safest systems to protect patient privacy and keep their institutions off the front pages and out of the courtroom. For patients, the benefits are obvious.

There are many benefits yet the history of government programs such as the Help America Vote Act provide instructive cautions. We are concerned that money will be thrown at untested software, hardware, and procedures under the cover of a jobs stimulus program, yet provide few U.S. jobs and large profits. We need to look and evaluate cautiously before we leap. As Prof. Rubin says:

Still, we need to be careful. There are many wrong ways to make this transition. If history is any indicator, unless a concerted effort is made to require proper protection, the new medical systems will be no better than the insecure voting machines that many states have purchased. When money flows from Washington, vendors tend to spring up out of nowhere. The ones who gain traction are the ones with the best sales teams, the glossiest brochures and the best connections, but not necessarily the most secure systems. This has happened over and over again in every industry.

We need to make sure that security standards, including evaluation and testing procedures, are established before the billions are spent. Computer security experts in academia, government and industry should all be engaged to establish criteria and evaluation methodologies. We need support from all of the relevant stakeholders, including privacy advocates, the medical establishment, vendors and the technical security community.

Prof. Rubin’s conclusion:

We are facing a golden opportunity to improve the lives of millions of Americans by providing computerized storage and access for medical records. We can reduce or eliminate redundancy, waste, unnecessary exams and procedures, and medical errors. And, we can do it without inordinate risks to individual privacy. Nevertheless, while electronic records appear to be our destiny, the privacy of those records will only be preserved if we are careful and do this right. There will be no second chances.

We would go further outlining the necessary cautionw. In addition to “the privacy of those records will only be preserved if we are careful and do this right.” We can also only “reduce or eliminate redundancy, waste, unnecessary exams and procedures, and medical errors” if we are “careful and do this right”, evaluating the total system. We must be careful that the system actually reduces medical errors. We could have a system that is costly, insecure, useless, and perhaps deadly. Yet, with caution and care we could have a system that is efficient, effective, secure, and life enhancing.

This is out of CTVotersCount’s realm to take a position. Perhaps nobody should be for or against a national program for electronic medial records. Instead either “conditionally for” the concept, yet witholding complete endorsement awaiting a comprehensive, thorougly evaluated plan. Or “conditionally against”, skeptical of past rushed plans, yet open to the possiblity of an effective plan being proposed. In any case, there are significant analogies between electrion medical records and electronic voting, yet also critical differences.

Questions for Secretary of the State Candidates

Over time we are developing some elections oriented questions we would ask every candidate for the office of Secretary of the State. This is our current draft of some open-ended, yet sometimes detailed questions, updated as of 12/13/2009.

(See our Editor’s Note on the 2010 race for Secretary of the State)

What qualifies you to perform the duties of Secretary of the State including the roles of Chief Elections Official, recording, and reporting?
What specific experience do you have with election laws, voter registration, and election management? Have you served as an election official? Do you have relevant experience leading a staff of professionals?
What changes in Connecticut and National election laws would you work for as Secretary of the State?
What changes would you make in the operations of the Secretary of the State’s office, the conduct of elections, the training of election officials, and the supervision of election officials? The Secretary of the State’s web site?
What changes would you make on your own initiative in your first 100 days and beyond?
What is your view of the current state of election integrity in Connecticut? Comment specifically on the results of the post-election audits, UConn memory card audits, the chain-of-custody of ballots, the certification of election results,and the state’s dependence on Diebold and LHS Associates.
Would you support in-state programming of memory cards and the independent testing of all memory cards prior to each election using the existing UConn developed, state funded testing system?
Which current and past Secretaries of State and laws in other states are worth emulating in Connecticut? Why?
In each of the last three years, several Democrats in the Connecticut Legislature have proposed implementing the National Popular Vote by interstate compact. Democrats opposed to the Compact include Secretary Bysiewicz and Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. What is your position on the National Popular Vote Compact?
IRV or Instant Runoff Voting has been broached in the Legislature and is under consideration in one Connecticut town for local elections. National experience has been mixed with a huge controversy in Aspen, CO and outright repeal in Burlington, VT. Can you explain IRV? Would you support it for Connecticut towns and statewide?
Connecticut and New York are possibly the only states retaining a, so called, Partisan Ballot. Can you describe the difference between a partisan and a non-partisan ballot? Would you support a non-partisan ballot for Connecticut?
We here a lot about increasing turn out, by making it more convenient to vote. How would you increase turn out by making elections more competitive in Connecticut? For instance, would you change any ballot access requirements for candidates?
Our election laws are antiquated, complex and confusing. For instance, the way paper ballots are preserved are described differently for different election types, for absentee vs. scanned ballots, vs. all paper elections. States differ in many regards on the sequence of election events and the timing of certification, recanvasses, and audits. For instance we do recanvasses in five days and start audits 15 days after the election, while Minnesota does audits in five days and starts recounts fourteen days after the election. Would you support a review of all our election laws to consider the best practices of other states in light of our change to optical scanners?
Good government groups recommend post-election audits independent from the Secretary of the State. Would you support legislation for audits independent of the Secretary of the State? Would you support requiring supervision of counting by officials independent of the same local officials that conducted the local election? Would you support State reimbursement of towns for post-election audit expenses?
Registrars complain of the expense and difficulty in setting up the IVS system for persons with disabilities, while few voters use the IVS which at most only accommodates voters who are blind. What would you do?
The Secretary of the State’s web site is consistently rated as one of the least useful when compared to other states. Would you support the posting of all election results by district for each contest, separated by optical scanned votes, absentee votes, manually counted votes, and provisional ballots along with the posting of copies of district Moderators’ Returns and optical scanner tapes? What other improvements would you make to the Secretary of the State’s web site to facilitate the voting process?
In the majority of Connecticut municipalities either Registrar has access to a single key allowing access to voted ballots, in many towns anyone in the registrars’ office has access to the key. Would you support legislation to require dual locks and two opposing election officials required to be present for all access to ballots, with such access controlled and recorded by the municipal clerk?
Registrars complain that the advice given by the Secretary of the State’s Office often depends on who responds to your question and on what day. Would you implement a system of tracking questions and responses to election official, candidate, and citizen questions?
President Obama has characterized cyber security as “one of the most serious … security challenges of the 21st century” yet, Congress passed and the President signed the MOVE Act providing support for pilot programs for Internet voting for Military and Overseas voters. Do you favor or oppose the submission of votes via the Internet, email or fax?
The state saved money and apparently increased citizen service by consolidating the Probate Court. Most states beyond New England have either elected or civil service professional election officials conducting elections by county. Would you support a complete review of the organization of our elections, with an eye to adopting some type of regional system consolidating the current 339+ registrars of voters in Connecticut?