June, 2009 | CTVotersCount.org

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?

Secretary of The State Candidate, Corey Brinson, Interview On Face The State

Sunday morning, Secretary of the State Candidate Corey Brinson was interview by Dennis House on Face The State at WFSB.

Sunday morning, Secretary of the State Candidate Corey Brinson was interview by Dennis House on Face The State at WFSB. <vodeo> (This post has been extended and corrected from an earlier version created before the video was available)

Note: This is our 1st commentary on the Secretary of The State’s race in the 2010 election. We intend to provide comprehensive coverage of the race, highlighting news reports, interviews and issues, yet sticking primarily to comments on election integrity. <see editor’s note>

From Dennis House’s bio at WFSB,

“Face The State” host Dennis House is a native New Englander and a resident of Connecticut since 1992. He thrives on grilling newsmakers on the venerable news program, which debuted on Channel 3 in the 1960s. His goal is to bring the politicians and public figures closer to Channel 3 viewers.

From Corey Brinson’s website:

I am running in this race because more people in our State will vote for the next American Idol than for the next Governor of Connecticut, and too few people are excited about seeking public office…

I am running in this race because in this recession we need to encourage business development and job growth…

I am running in this race because we are failing as a State to attract and retain our young professionals…

Interview highlights:

Mr. Brinson’s intention is to “Inspire a new wave of leaders” in Connecticut playing a role similar to Barack Obama for the Connecticut 2010 election. To “get people excited about this campaign…bring in people who have never been a part of or never been excited of the political process”.

He is not running against Susan Bysiewicz, the current Secretary of the State: “Susan has been a fine public servant, a great Secretary of the State”. “The biggest opponent in this race, I will be running against myself”

His strongest stated positions are ending the business entry tax and “tax credits for young professionals” to keep them in the state.

He was inspired to run by his aunt, Hartford City Common Council Member, Veronica Airey-Wilson. (the earlier, rush version of the post had incorrectly indicated another person was his aunt)

He stated his major qualifications are as a small business owner (law practice) and the son of a small business owner (painter).

We have no comments on the substance of the interview, except that we found not much of substance covered – far from a grilling – and lacking questions related to the elections role of the Secretary of the State. Over time we intend develop some questions we would ask every candidate for the office of Secretary of the State.

As of the latest version of the SEEC candidate listing, dated May 11, there is one other announced candidate, Republican Richard Abbate, who was the Republican candidate in 2006. And one candidate with an exploritory committee, Democrat James Spallone, currently co-chair of the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

Editor’s Note: 2010 Secretary of the State Election

We intend to provide comprehensive coverage of the 2010 Connecticut Secretary of the State race, highlighting news reports, interviews and issues, yet sticking primarily to comments on relevant to election management and election integrity.

Our bias when it comes to choosing a Secretary of the State, is that election responsibilities are the cart, the horse, and most of the content of the office where a Secretary can make differences, both positive or negative.

We intend to provide comprehensive coverage of the 2010 Connecticut Secretary of the State race, highlighting news reports, interviews and issues, yet sticking primarily to comments relevant to election management and election integrity.

We acknowledge that we are biased. We believe the most important duty of the Secretary of the State is serving as the state’s Chief Election Official. In that capacity first and foremost insuring election integrity, followed by assisting and encouraging voters, while assisting, leading, and training election officials across the state. Our bias when it comes to choosing a Secretary of the State, is that election responsibilities are the cart, the horse, and most of the content of the office where a Secretary can make differences, both positive or negative.

The Secretary has other important functions and official duties, but those appear to us to be more routine, calling for effective management and quality service to the citizens of the state. Like all citizens the Secretary can comment on and work toward reforms in areas related to elections, other official duties, and general issues. We have no problems with the Secretary calling for ethics reform, initiatives associated with small business, changes in the budget, eduction, honoring veterans etc.- some of these are related to the official duties of the office, some are not. But when it comes to elections the Secretary is directly involved in the entire process.

From the Connecticut Statute:

Sec. 9-3. Secretary to be Commissioner of Elections. Presumption concerning rulings and opinions. The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title, except for chapter 155, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions of chapter 54.

Sec. 9-4. Duties of secretary. The Secretary of the State, in addition to other duties imposed by law, shall, as such commissioner, (1) advise local election officials in connection with proper methods of conducting elections and referenda as defined in subsection (n) of section 9-1, and, upon request of a municipal official, matters arising under chapter 99; (2) prepare regulations and instructions for the conduct of elections, as designated by law; (3) provide local election officials with a sufficient number of copies of election laws pamphlets and materials necessary to the conduct of elections; (4) distribute all materials concerning proposed laws or amendments required by law to be submitted to the electors; (5) recommend to local election officials the form of registration cards and blanks; (6) determine, in the manner provided by law, the forms for the preparation of voting machines, for the recording of the vote and the conduct of the election and certification of election returns; (7) prepare the ballot title or statement to be placed on the ballot for any proposed law or amendment to the Constitution to be submitted to the electors of the state; (8) certify to the several boards the form of official ballots for state and municipal offices; (9) provide the form and manner of filing notification of vacancies, nomination and subsequent appointment to fill such vacancies; (10) prescribe, provide and distribute absentee voting forms for use by the municipal clerks; (11) examine and approve nominating petitions filed under section 9-453o; and (12) distribute corrupt practices forms and provide instructions for completing and filing the same.

Connecticut Will Not Be Illinois or New York

Governor Jodi Rell signed the bill for elections to fill Senate vacancies.

Our senators matter. It is worth the estimated $6,000,000 cost of such elections, where our senators make decisions involving billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Such “Special Elections” should not be exempt (as they currently are) from the small cost and huge value of post-election audits. Such elections are not exempt from the risks of error and fraud.

Governor Jodi Rell signed the bill for elections to fill Senate vacancies. See <CTNewsJunkie>

In an unexpected move, Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed the US Senate vacancy bill which takes away the governor’s power to appoint someone to a vacant US Senate seat.

“Although the current process for filling a Senate vacancy has worked well in our state for many decades, this bill gives directly to the people of Connecticut the decision on who would fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate,” Rell said in a press release. “Since taking office as Governor, I have done everything in my power to make Connecticut a model for all states when it comes to openness, transparency and citizen participation in government.”

Statement of Representative Spallone, Co-Chair of the Government Administration and Elections Commitee:

For IMMEDIATE Release Contact: Rose Ryan

June 26, 2009 Office: (860) 240-8527

Statement of State Representative James Spallone (D-Chester, Deep River, Essex & Haddam) the House Chair of the Government, Administration and Elections Committee regarding Governor M. Jodi Rell’s signing today of Substitute Bill 913 – An Act Concerning United States Senate Vacancies:

“I would like to thank Governor Rell for signing this bill into law today and making Connecticut a leader in fair elections. Connecticut voters can now choose their Senator when a vacancy arises just as we already do for our congressional representatives, as we did from 1913 to 1945. This is the democratic way.”

“Through this legislation, my colleagues in the General Assembly and Governor Rell have demonstrated their commitment to making Connecticut a national leader in election reform efforts.”

“Connecticut is now the first and only state in the nation to reform its Senate vacancy process in the wake of the scandal in Illinois and controversy in New York.”

CTVotersCount is pleased that the citizens of Connecticut will elect our senators. Our senators matter. It is worth the estimated $6,000,000 cost of such elections, where our senators make decisions involving billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Such “Special Elections” should not be exempt (as they currently are) from the small cost and huge value of post-election audits. Such elections are not exempt from the risks of error and fraud.

Connecticut Could be Minnesota

Here is an article from the National Journal pointing out what Minnesota demonstrated about absentee ballots which is instructive as we consider expanding their use here in Connecticut:

Update: Median Lawsuit for public access to ballots: <read>

We have the same concern in Connecticut where ballots are sealed from public access and then immediately shredded.

******************

We have pointed to the integrity of the Minnesota recounts and audits as models of integrity. We have also pointed to the lessons learned in Minnesota that call into question the idea of a national popular vote and the risks of absentee ballots. Here is an article from the National Journal pointing out what Minnesota demonstrated about absentee ballots which is instructive as we consider expanding their use here in Connecticut: National Journal: Your State Could Be Minnesota -The Disputed Senate Race Highlights Problems With The Way States Count Absentee Ballots <read>

Absentee ballots were “definitely the Achilles’ heel of Minnesota,” said Edward B. Foley, a professor at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, who predicts that errors in counting absentee ballots could become one of the next big problems plaguing the nation’s election system. (A related trouble spot on the horizon, according to Foley, is the erratic counting of provisional ballots.)

Absentee ballot use rose in the 2008 election, fueled by high interest in the presidential race and anticipated long lines. Nearly 30 states now allow absentee voting without an excuse such as medical or travel reasons. Early voting is also on the increase.

As states have embraced absentee voting, however, reports of problems have rolled in. Voters in Colorado, Florida and Ohio had their ballots rejected because of errors such as failing to include a copy of their ID with the ballot, forgetting to sign or signing in the wrong place, and failing to seal an inner envelope.

Connecticut: Land of Steady [and Slow] Habits

Connecticut takes criticism from Brad Friedman for the slow and unpredictable speed of election enforcement. As those of us who have submitted complaints know, they can take a long time to be completed. But as Brad points out, some are resolved much quicker than others.

Update 10/16/2013: Inconsistent Justice. Now a State Representative is accused in case dismissed against Ann Coulter: CTNewsJunkie: Elections Enforcement Hands Evidence Over To Criminal Prosecutors In Ayala Investigation <read>

An SEEC investigation revealed evidence that Ayala “falsely registered to vote at the address in Bridgeport in July 2009 and remained registered at this address until January 2013.”

There is evidence she used the address to vote in nine primaries and elections, according to Attorney Kevin Ahern of the SEEC who investigated the matter. There also is evidence she ran for elected office twice using the address and applied for funds from the Citizens’ Election Program using the false address, he wrote in a statement.

Rep. Ayala’s mother Santa Ayala is the Democratic Registrar of Voters in Bridgeport and “may have conspired with Representative Ayala to commit fraud,” Ahern wrote in his statement to the commission.

***********************************
Original Post:

It’s been nearly five months since the official complaint about Ann Coulter’s alleged voter fraud in 2002 and 2004 was filed in Connecticut, yet state election officials continue to refuse comment on the status of the case beyond acknowledging that it’s “still pending,” as recently confirmed by The BRAD BLOG.

Several charges of absentee voter fraud were alleged in the complaint against Coulter in Connecticut, where evidence shows she cast absentee ballots illegally while living in her then permanent New York City residence…

“The delay in this case is inexplicable given they need to prove two things: where she registered to vote/voted and where she lived when she registered to vote/voted,” the complainant in the case, Daniel Borchers, a Christian conservative who has long opposed Coulter’s behavior…

But sometimes things are resolved quickly:

In a case which almost identically mirrors the allegations against Coulter, New York resident Daniel Jarvis Brown, who had been registered to vote at his parents’ home in CT, voted in the November 2008 election illegally by absentee ballot. Coulter also used her parents home address, claiming it as her own, when she is alleged to have voted while a permanent resident of NYC in 2002 and 2004…

But the timing of Brown’s violation and subsequent settlement of the case is notable as well. While Brown’s violation [PDF] occurred in November of last year, he signed his agreement with the State Elections Enforcement Commission less than three months later, on February 23, 2009, and the Commission formally adopted the agreement on March 5th, just four months after the original violation.

In another more recent case [PDF], a CT voter was alleged to have voted improperly during a referendum in the Town of New Hartford on February 12, 2009. After an investigation by the Commission finding no impropriety, the complaint was officially adopted as “dismissed” on May 27th, less than two months after the election.

Connecticut has several nicknames in addition to “The Land Of Steady Habits”, including “The Provisions State”, the “Nutmeg State”, and perhaps most pleasing, “The Constitution State”.

Update: 10/6/2010 – some progress via BradBlog: Ann Coulter to Face Vote on Voter Fraud Charges in CT by State Elections Enforcement Commission <read>

Will Ann Coulter finally be held accountable for having committed voter fraud? We may find out on October 14th when the matter will come up at a public hearing by Connecticut’s State Elections Commission after an extraordinarily long two-year delay since the complaints about her allegedly illegal absentee votes in 2002 and 2004 were filed.

Update: Brad Friedman discusses Ann Coulter’s case <about 9 min in 1st hour>

Update: 10/14/2010 Charges Dismissed <read>

Courant: Iranians Sure Could Speed Up U.S. Voting System

CTVotersCount readers know we have often criticized Courant Editorials. In this case we are pleased to agree…

What we need to do in this country, I’m thinking, is to hire some Iranian election officials as consultants and see what they can do to speed up our own system.

Think about it:

We spend billions on high-tech voting machines.

CTVotersCount readers know we have often criticized Courant Editorials <e.g> <e.g> <e.g>. In this case we are pleased to agree – that this appeared in an acknowledges humor column. <Jim Shea’s Full Article>

We we need is less hanging chads, more paper ballots, more counting as accurately as the do in Minnesota, and less frivolous challenges in the aftermath of accurate counting.

Two CT Reps Co-Sponsor Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act

Today Representative Rush Holt introduced a new and improved Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, H.R. 2894. CTVotersCount appreciates Representatives John Larson and Jim Himes for signing on as initial co-sponsors.

Update: New York Times Endorses Holt Bill: “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.”

Today Representative Rush Holt introduced a new and improved Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act, H.R. 2894. CTVotersCount appreciates Representatives John Larson and Jim Himes for signing on as initial co-sponsors. We encourage all of our representatives to support and co-sponsor the bill.

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.

Update: New York Times Endorses 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.

Iran: Who Won? Who Lost? Was It Stolen? Was It Credible?

For now, we can say that Ahmadinejad seems to have won, one way or another. But winning in a questionable way with the opposition protesting is not a complete win, it may come back and bite sooner or later. Credibility is missing. Without credibility, democracy loses — no matter the intent of the voters — no matter the accuracy of the election.

Several articles on the Iranian election: The Guardian Brad Blog Daily Voting News. Right now we have no way verifying or refuting the official result.

For now, we can say that Ahmadinejad seems to have won, one way or another. But winning in a questionable way with the opposition protesting is not a complete win, it may come back and bite sooner or later. It has been said that election credibility is for the losers so that they can accept the result. We say it is for the voters so that they actually determine their government and have confidence that their collective intent is realized. Credibility is missing. Without credibility, democracy loses — no matter the intent of the voters — no matter the accuracy of the election.

From The Guardian: Iranians can’t believe it:

I don’t mean that Ahmadinejad did not have any supporters at all. He had many supporters actually – some of his rallies were as huge as Mousavi’s and the competition between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi looked pretty close, but winning twice as many votes as Mousavi is incredible. That’s why Iranians are now demonstrating on streets. They can’t believe it.

As Brad Friedman makes the same point, and how it applies to us: Iran’s 2009 Election Results Suggest Massive Fraud

Just Like Ohio’s in 2004 Without citizen oversight and transparency, ‘faith-based’ elections threaten democracy no matter where they are held…

It sounds a lot like Ohio 2004. A less than popular old-line incumbent facing massive public demonstrations against him and in favor of his main progressive challenger promising reform; polls that suggest a swell of support for the challenger…

The most substantive difference from Ohio 2004, however: the declared winner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is said to have defeated his main opponent Mir Hossein Mousavi by a 63% to 34% “landslide,” instead of the razor-thin margin seen in Ohio…

The other main differences between Iran ’09 and Ohio ’04: New York Times is already asking “Landslide or Fraud?” this morning; in Iran, supporters of the challenger are taking to the streets; and the challenger himself has already called the election results a “fraud”…

Help America Vote Act Fails Again

CTVotersCount readers know that HAVA has failed miserably in improving integrity. Its been a costly exercise that has improved voting integrity in some states and reduced it in others.

Now we can add another failure. According to the GAO report, only 27% of polling places actually have no impediments to voting by the disabled. Its worse than that.

The GAO report to congressional requesters: Voters With Disabilities – More Polling Places Had No Potential Impediments Than in 2000, but Challenges Remain <read>

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) had two major goals: Improve the integrity of voting after the 2000 debacle; and help those with disabilities vote independently and privately.

CTVotersCount readers know that HAVA has failed miserably in improving integrity. Its been a costly exercise that has improved voting integrity in some states and reduced it in others.

Now we can add another failure. According to the GAO report, only 27% of polling places actually have no impediments to voting by the disabled. Its worse than that. In 2000 16% of polling places had no impediments, so at great cost and effort only 11% of polling places improved.