By Luther Weeks on October 26, 2011
Complaint Cited ‘Numerous Applications’ For Ballots By Engel Before Police Chief Referendum
Posted in CT, CT Skulduggery and Errors, Mail/Absentee Voting
By Luther Weeks on October 24, 2011
In Bridgeport, a hallmark of Democratic Party politics has been the aggressive use of absentee ballots — so aggressive, in fact, that more than a dozen consent decrees have been signed since 1988 with the State Elections Enforcement Commission stemming from allegations of wrongdoing by party operatives.
Posted in CT, CT Skulduggery and Errors, Mail/Absentee Voting
By Luther Weeks on September 30, 2011
Was the “online tampering” done by outside hackers? Or was it an insider? Does the Courant have the expertise to determine the cause in this instance and actually create effective controls to prevent future online voting attacks? If so, the editors should be advising the likes of the Department of Defense, banks, and Google.
Posted in CT, CT Skulduggery and Errors, Internet Voting
By Luther Weeks on September 21, 2011
Who says there is little a single legislator can do to affect election integrity and confidence? Human error can change an election result or serve as a ready excuse to cover-up fraud.
Posted in CT, CT Skulduggery and Errors, Mail/Absentee Voting
By Luther Weeks on March 28, 2011
Earlier this month we cautioned the legislature about enacting the UMOVE Act without providing election officials an opportunity to check for conflicts with existing laws. We highlight an example of a similar conflict in existing state and local laws that frustrates officials and disenfranchises voters.
Posted in CT Skulduggery and Errors, Legislature2011
By Luther Weeks on February 23, 2011
Connecticut is the only state where a registrar from each political party is elected into office. Many registrars told the I-Team while this may seem inefficient, it has worked literally for centuries.
Posted in CT, CT Law, CT Skulduggery and Errors
By Luther Weeks on January 12, 2011
Votes were miscounted and miscalculated adding votes to each candidate, but not changing winner in the race for governor
Each candidate for the governor’s race gained votes in the recount when compared to the officially reported results, as follows: Foley (+174), Malloy (+761), and Marsh (+19). These differences parallel candidate shares in the initially reported results. Counting of all ballots in the governor’s race resulted in differences in many counts, totaling 1,520 votes miscounted, of these 1,236 were initially under reported and 284 were initially over reported.
Simply printing more ballots only reduces the chance of the specific problem that occurred in Bridgeport. There are other causes that could result in a municipality having to scramble to photocopy ballots or perform hand counting such as a massive power failure or ballots lost in a fire, flood, or accident shortly before or during Election Day.
Posted in CT, CT Skulduggery and Errors, Our Editorials, Recounts/Recanvasses
By Luther Weeks on January 5, 2011
[Republican Registrar of Voters] Borges also said that the Bridgeport registrar’s office is stretched too thin.
[Bysiewicz] feels the Bridgeport office is well-staffed — it spends $551,466 annually, most of that in salaries for two registrars
Posted in CT, CT Skulduggery and Errors
By David Bedell on December 23, 2010
The SOTS [Secretary of the State's] reporting of election results appears to have improved since 2008. That year, many votes on the Working Families Party line went unreported or were lumped in with the counts on the Democratic line…
However, the SOTS or the town officials seem to have overlooked some votes for Independent gubernatorial candidate Tom Marsh: in Bozrah and Shelton, the SOTS reports 0 votes while the Hartford Courant reports 27 and 198 respectively.
Posted in CT, CT Skulduggery and Errors | Tagged Governor, Independent Party, Tom Marsh, Working Families Party
By Luther Weeks on December 12, 2010
Given the circumstances I am not surprised that the Coalition found such differences. However, understanding how it happened does not justify complacency, it calls for appropriate action. Connecticut voters deserve a more accurate and resilient system. Democracy requires it.
Posted in CT, CT Skulduggery and Errors, Recounts/Recanvasses
