CT Post: Recount shows widespread miscalculations

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.

Last week the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition completed the recount of all ballots in Bridgeport in conjunction with the Connecticut Post Newspaper, with the cooperation of the City of Bridgeport and its election officials.

Here are links to the CTPost’s coverage today, followed by my summary opinion:

Lead story: Recount shows widespread miscalculations <read>

If you cast a photocopied ballot in last month’s gubernatorial election in Bridgeport, there’s a 1 in 4 chance your vote was miscounted.

How we counted: How the recount was conducted <read>

How election day went: Diaries tell of election chaos <read>

Results in more detail: Bridgeport election recount – The totals <read>

Columnist Opinion: Time for Bridgeport’s Democratic registrar of voters to go <read>

An editorial: Voting process in need of reform <read>

Officials in Bridgeport and in Hartford need to take a look at the process. For one thing, the secretary of the state should have the authority to intervene in the case of, say, a municipality that has ordered an obviously inadequate number of ballots.

Wading through the bags of ballots and talking with the officials involved also hammered home the point that an election is a human endeavor, a relatively complex exercise run by people who are well-intentioned but just as susceptible to error, fatigue, frustration and anger as any of the rest of us.

In an ideal world, an election being the cornerstone of our way of doing things, it should be carried out with a nonpartisan professional at the helm and not left the sole responsibility of party loyalists like registrars of voters.

My Summary Opinion

I add my thanks to everyone involved: The Connecticut Post for its leadership, initiative, and support of the recount; the City of Bridgeport, especially the election officials for their open and friendly cooperation; the other Coalition members: The Connecticut League of Women Voters, Connecticut Common Cause, and The Connecticut Citizens Action Group; and most of all the fifty-six (56) citizens committed to democracy who volunteered over 115 full days to the project, on short notice, many taking 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 full days and more to contribute to this effort.

Time for Bridgeport’s Democratic registrar of voters to go

Bridgeport hearing expose issues beyond ballot shortages

“Training was not evident. Professionalism was not evident,”

Update: OnlyInBridgeport video of former GAE Chair, Rep Chris Caruso. Articulates the problems, possible solutions, and obstacles, including impeachment

Hartford Courant, AP coverage <read>

when she arrived at her polling place around 1:15 p.m., she found poll workers yelling at one another. She said she was handed a ballot that looked like a photocopy without any explanation.

“It made me feel very uneasy. Training was not evident. Professionalism was not evident,” she said.

Representative Chris Caruso, former Chair of the Government Administration and Elections Committee once characterized our voting system as the “Wild West” was there:

State Rep. Chris Caruso, D-Bridgeport, was among those who called for the resignation of Sandi Ayala, the city’s Democratic registrar of voters…

Caruso said he believes many voters were disenfranchised on Election Day, discouraged from voting because they had to wait two or three hours for a ballot. He called on the U.S. Attorney to investigate what happened in Bridgeport and whether any criminal activity took place. A similar request was made by the state Republicans.

Some residents said they were embarrassed by the election fiasco, saying it’s the latest black eye for the city that has been besieged over the years by budget problems and a former mayor who went to prison on corruption charges.

Yet others spoke up for the registrars, saying they were overworked on Election Day, didn’t have enough help and face difficulty finding competent people to work at the polls once a year.

Update: More reporting from CTNewsJunkie <read>

Update: OnlyInBridgeport video of former GAE Chair, Rep Chris Caruso. Articulates the problems, possible solutions, and obstacles, including impeachment <view>

Editorial: Understand all the Symptoms, Explore the Options, Then Act

Editorials and legislators are already reacting and taking sides to solve the “ballot printing” problem.
It is critical to understand the entire scope of issues and inadequacies in all aspects of the election process; then review all the options, look for local best practices in Connecticut and explore what other states do well; then and only then develop a comprehensive cure. This is the common sense way to proceed, unfortunately it is hard work from start to implementation. Otherwise we are destined to react to one problem at a time, with one expensive, disruptive band-aid after another.

Background: Reacting to one symptom at a time

The problems in Bridgeport stem directly from a series of errors and faults. The specific details will likely come out in calmer times. They include a combination of:

Ordering an unjustifiably low number of ballots based on past history
No review of that order in the light of Obama’s visit and the predicted closeness of the election
Lack of awareness in polls and/or city hall of the pending lack of ballots
Lack of timely reaction to the pending and actual lack of ballots
Lack of detailed standards for handling pending and actual lack of ballots

Solutions also revolve around ballot printing. The obvious solutions to the “ballot printing” problem:

Legislating enough ballots for all voters plus some spares
Not leaving ballot printing to the judgment of local officials
Legislating a minimum based on a formula based on past similar elections
Formal procedures to initiate, obtain, and protect emergency ballots
State funding of ballot printing

Editorials and legislators are already reacting and taking sides e.g. <Editorial NH Register> <AP: Lawmakers will try to fix ballot problems>. We point out that printing 100% of ballots would average on the order of $500,000 a year over printing enough for expected voters plus a generous margin, while post-election audits average on the order of $120,000 per year.

We are seeing several even more wide ranging reactions triggered by the problem with ballots. They include changing from optical scan to more risky, unproven, and expensive solutions: Touch Screens (DREs) are expensive, lead to long lines, unauditable, risky, and expensive. Internet voting is unproven, expensive, unauditable, risky and expensive. Others include making the Secretary of the State an appointed official.

Editorial: Understand All The Symptoms, Explore Options, Then Act

Ballot printing is only one weakness in the current system. Other major weaknesses include, but are no means limited to:

Inadequate ballot security and chain of custody
Lack of standards and uniformity in all aspects of election management, especially ballot security, post-election audits, and recanvasses.
Inaccurate, unreliable, non-transparent accumulation of vote totals for certification which also are critical to determine recanvass levels, and ballot access for third parties
Inadequate training of and for election officials at all levels
Lack of oversight and inspection of compliance in all areas including, election management, ballot security, post-election audits, and vote accounting
Ambiguous, incomplete, hard to comprehend manuals, procedures and directives
Our laws have not been fully updated to reflect optical scanning and paper ballots. Overall there is ambiguity between the roles and responsibilities of the Secretary of the State, Elections Enforcement, and the 339 registrars of voters

After the 2007 election, in early 2008 the General Administration and Elections Committee of the Legislature held five public hearings, one in each of our Congressional districts to understand issues with the first optical scan election. Yet little has changed. Perhaps it is time for more hearings covering a range of issues surrounding voting in Connecticut – not just in every district but also multiple hearings focused on various areas of election management.

It is critical to understand the entire scope of issues and inadequacies in all aspects of the election process; then review all the options, look for local best practices in Connecticut and explore what other states do well; then and only then develop a comprehensive cure. This is the common sense way to proceed, unfortunately it is hard work from start through implementation.

Otherwise we are destined to react to one problem at a time, with one expensive, disruptive band-aid after another – following a series of unnecessary election controversies.

Warning: NO Internet Voting In CT – A Scam or just misleading calls to voters?

“People have been stopping into the office to express concern over telephone calls that they’ve received in which they are directd [sic] to a web site where they believe they’re being told they can vote online,”

From the New Canaan Patch: Residents Report Concerns About Possible Voter “Scam” <read

Town Clerk says it’s not quite a scam, but not it’s not quite right, either.

Responding to reports that prospective voters have been approached by an organization inviting them to “vote online,” Town Clerk Claudia Weber said the outreach campaign is not quite a “scam,” but some of the information being offered is not completely accurate.

“People have been stopping into the office to express concern over telephone calls that they’ve received in which they are directd [sic] to a web site where they believe they’re being told they can vote online,” Weber told Patch.

She said Rep. John Hetherington, the registrar of voters and Republican Campaign Headquarters have received similar calls from concerned residents.

Weber said the callers identify themselves as part of The Legacy Foundation. They direct prospective voters to a password protected website for an organization called Democracy Depends on You!

“Once they get onto the site, they’re actually invited to request an application for an absentee ballot,” Weber said. Applying for an absentee ballot is legal. Weber says the problem is the language on the site.

With a password provided by the caller, prospective voters see the following message:

As you know, our Democracy depends on Americans from every part of our great country exercising their right to vote. Few elections have generated the enthusiasm of the election to be held this November 2nd.

For a multitude of reasons, you can avoid the long lines at the polls and vote early from the comfort of your own home.

Download and complete your application for absentee voting now. “There are only certain reasons to vote by absentee,” Weber said. “Wanting to avoid lines is not one of them. You can vote by absentee ballot if you are going to be absent during voting hours, bcause of illness or physical disability, if you are in service in the armed forces, if your religion forbids secular activity on that day, or if your required performance as an election official precludes you from getting to your polling place to vote.”

Patch was shown the Democracy Depends on You! website homepage, which provides no address or phone number. The site says it is “Paid for by the Alliance for America’s Future – not affiliated with LongDistanceVoter.com”.

The Alliance for America’s Future homepage says its mission is “dedicated to educating and advocating sound economic and security policies that will foster growth, prosperity, and peace for America’s future.”

We looked up the Alliance for America’s Future on Google, it seems to be a 527 linked to Mary Cheney.

Update: New Hampshire too <read>

Post-Election Audit Report: Incremental Improvement – New Integrity Concern

Citizen observation and analysis shows some improvements along with a newly uncovered problem with the random selection process…We conclude that August post-election audits still do not inspire confidence because of:

failure in the integrity of the random district selection process,
lack of standards for determining need for further investigation of discrepancies,
weaknesses in the ballot chain of custody, and
lack of, consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit.

the list of polling districts for the random audit drawing was missing some districts and is otherwise inaccurate and ambiguous. The integrity of the audit requires an accurate list of districts that is verifiable by the public. We have extended our recommendations to the Legislature to include an efficient fix to this problem.

Full Report, Press Release etc.<Audit Coalition Post>

Summary, from the Press Release and Report:

Coalition Finds Small Improvements and New Problem in
Connecticut Post-Election Audits

Citizen observation and analysis shows some improvements along with a newly uncovered problem with the random selection process

This is the sixth major post-election audit observation report by the Coalition since the adoption of optical scanners and paper ballots statewide.

Coalition Executive Director, Luther Weeks noted, “Unfortunately, we discovered that the list of polling districts for the random audit drawing was missing some districts and is otherwise inaccurate and ambiguous. The integrity of the audit requires an accurate list of districts that is verifiable by the public. We have extended our recommendations to the Legislature to include an efficient fix to this problem.”

League of Women Voters of Connecticut President, Cheryl Dunson said: “Compared to previous audits, the Coalition noted continuing incremental improvements in the attention to detail, following procedures, and in the chain-of-custody by election officials. We caution that the primary audit is simpler and shorter than those for November elections which may account much more accurate counting this time.”

We conclude that August post-election audits still do not inspire confidence because of:

failure in the integrity of the random district selection process,
lack of standards for determining need for further investigation of discrepancies,
weaknesses in the ballot chain of custody, and
lack of, consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit.

Each of these items individually could impact the integrity of the statewide post-election audit and calls into question the credibility of the entire post-election audit.

Although most of our general observations and concerns remain, we observed improvements in following audit procedures, in the accuracy of the counting, and in the completion of forms.

Connecticut Citizen Action Group Executive Director, Tom Swan said, “The integrity of the entire audit is dependent the ballot chain-of-custody and on every step of the audit being accurately accomplished in a consistent, transparent, and professional manner. We continue to support our past recommendations to the Secretary of the State and the Legislature for improvement in the post-election audit laws, counting procedures, and chain-of-custody.”

Weeks added, “We look forward to the post-election audit of the November election. We hope to see significant improvement in following procedures along with more accurate counting, demonstrated in the November post-election audit which will involve more extensive, complex counting. ”

Observers came from the membership ranks of the coalition partners — The League of Women Voters of Connecticut, The Connecticut Citizen Action Group, Common Cause Connecticut, and Connecticut Voters Count. Without volunteer observers, nobody but a small number of local election officials would know what happens in post-election audits.

New Overall Audit Integrity Concern

A new concern surfacing this year is the inaccurate list of districts used in the random selection process which is required by law to be based on all of the districts used in the election. This directly impacts the integrity and credibility of the entire post-election audit.

Issues In Three Towns

Several districts in one town were selected, but in one case in the municipality, the ballot bag contained only blank ballots. In subsequent discussions with the registrar, she reported that a novice moderator in a multiple district polling place had sealed all voted ballots in one bag and all unused ballots in another bag. [As far as we know, this district was never counted as was not included in Audit Reports from the Secretary of the State.]

In the one district: The official Audit Report indicates 1703 machine counted ballots but only 688 manually counted ballots counted in the audit. In that same audit report 188 ballots are listed for one party with a total of 254 votes in the race audited for that party. The huge difference may represent poor counting procedures and lack of understanding of the audit procedures, however, we have no way of determining the accuracy of the audit nor of the official reporting of results. Our observer’s comments:

They never counted the ballots first…One team referenced the Tally Sheet from Election night. They recounted their votes until the figures agreed… Checking was done to the Tally Sheet off the Moderator’s report not the machine tape… I did not observe a machine tape, only the Moderator’s return with the Tally Sheet. When I asked if they had a machine tape, I was told no by one of the Registrars. When I asked if there was a tape in the ballot bag, I was told no… I have concern about the number entered on the “LT Gov”

These results may represent incompetence. However, incompetence uninvestigated transparently leaves an opening to cover-up fraud and error. The Secretary of the State’s Office had reviewed district results, yet apparently did not notice these large differences until it was pointed out by the coalition.

In one of the last district reports provided to the Secretary of the State’s Office: In one district in one municipality which audited three districts there was a significant difference between the machine counts in one race and the hand count reported. For two candidates the machine counted 262 and 154 votes while the hand counts were 132 and 78 votes for those same candidates.

Full Report, Press Release etc.<Audit Coalition Post>

Update from CTNewsJunkie: Questions Raised As State Finishes Post-Primary Audit <read>

Warning: New link to check your CT Voter Registration – Not Always Accurate

It has come to our attention that the voter information provided by the Secretary of the State’s new web tool is inaccurate in some cases.

We learned this in the course of discovering a loophole in the integrity of the post-election audit random drawing process.

It has come to our attention that the voter information provided by the Secretary of the State’s new web tool is inaccurate in some cases.

We learned this in the course of discovering a loophole in the integrity of the post-election audit random drawing process:

This spring we realized that there was no way for us to verify the accuracy of the list of polling districts subject to se4lection in the 10% random drawing for post-election audits. Each time we had attended the drawing we checked a list of districts supplied by the Secretary of the State’s office against the slips placed in the barrel and occasionally founds some differences to correct. This spring, it occurred to us that we did not have a way to verify the list of districts we were given. In subsequent discussions with the Secretary of the State’s Office, we learned that municipalities are not obligated to send lists of polling places to the Secretary of the State. Municipalities are requested to do that, most do, but are not required to. The Secretary of the State’s Office has proposed legislation to mandate that information be sent, but like many bills it was never passed by the Legislature.

Subsequently we proposed that the list of districts be determined by extracting them from the Secretary of the State’s web feature for voter polling place look up. Unfortunately, we learned that was also an unreliable source of a list of polling places, and must therefor be supplying incorrect information to some voters. The point was brought home to us when we called on of the towns selected for audit in the most recent random drawing: The district chosen in the town for audit did not currently exist. The non-existent district was replaced by an alternate in another town, yet without a good lists of districts required an audit loophole is created since existing districts not included in the drawing could be known in advance and therefor guaranteed not to be audited.

Reviewing the Secretary of the State’s press release sent on August 5th, we see that another potential cause of inaccuracy was initially disclosed: <read>

The website will also provide the location of the individual’s polling place. Users must be aware that occasional special conditions can force changes in
polling places. For the most up to date location, voters should check with their town offices and local registrar of voters.

However, we caution that we can find no similar caution of disclaimer on the website itself associated with the lookup feature. The only mention is in the posted press release.

Update: 9/4/2010

I observed a post-election audit yesterday. Both districts selected in the random drawing were incorrectly identified by district numbers. Fortunately, the locations were correct and each polling place had only one district. Perhaps the problem is pervasive.

************Original Post 8/5/2010

Link to the Secretary of the State’s website to check that you are registered to vote:<click> More voting information: <click>

While we applaud the Secretary and her staff for making this available, we have one suggestion: Include the party affiliation in the results. We find that many voters do not recall their affiliation, if any. Having that available would reduce much confusion and unnecessary work for voters and registrars.

UCONN: Failed memory cards caused by weak batteries, inadequate design

This week at the 2010 Electronic Voting Technology Workshop on Trustworthy Elections in Washington, D.C., Dr. Alex Shvartsman and his team from the Uconn VoTeR Center delivered a significant paper. It covered research into the cause of the complete failure of the AccuVote-OS memory cards, at an unacceptable rate — We suggest the costs of mitigating the problems should be born by the manufacturer and/or distributor since the ultimate cause is the inadequate design of the memory cards for their intended purpose.

This week I attended the 2010 Electronic Voting Technology Workshop on Trustworthy Elections in Washington, D.C., Dr. Alex Shvartsman and his team from the Uconn VoTeR Center delivered a significant paper. It covered research into the cause of the complete failure of the AccuVote-OS memory cards, at an unacceptable rate. <See our earlier coverage>. <The Research Report>

[W]e determined the time interval from the instant when a battery warning is issued by the AccuVote to the point when the battery does not have enough voltage to retain data on the memory card.We show that such interval is about 2 weeks. Thus timely warnings cannot be provided to protect against battery discharge and loss of data during the election process…

Recommendations

we determined the time interval from the instant when a battery warning is issued by the AccuVote to the point when the battery does not have enough voltage to retain data on the memory card. We show that such interval is about 2 weeks. Thus timely warnings cannot be provided to protect against battery discharge and loss of data during the election process…

The lifetime of the Energizer battery, when its voltage remains above the 2V needed for data retention in standby mode, at that current load, according to its datasheet [9] is 9,000 hours or approximately one year.

Given that it is possible that a memory card is used for elections once a year, it leads us to the same conclusion: For each election, a decision would be made, whether or not to replace the batteries for this election. The decision would be based on the amount of time since the batteries were last replaced and on the estimate of the service life of the battery (e.g., using the procedure at the end of the previous section).

Discussing the challenge with Dr. Shvartsman at the workshop, it seems that replacing the batteries is more complicated than might be assumed. The battery is under the memory card label, so replacement includes completely removing all remnants of the old label then preparing and placing a new label on the memory card. Shvartsman estimated the replacement cost, including labor, may be on the order of $10 per memory card.

We suggest that $10 per year per card is well worth avoiding most of the problems associated with the current huge, unacceptable failure rate. The total cost would be about $40,000 per year, somewhere in the range of $0.025 per ballot cast. To put this in context, ballot printing is about $0.45 per ballot and election costs average in the range of $5.00 to $8.00 per ballot cast. We also suggest the costs of mitigating the problems should be born by the manufacturer and/or distributor since the ultimate cause is the inadequate design of the memory cards for their intended purpose.

PS: Dr. Shrvartsman is mentioned prominently in an article posted at Verified Voting: Voting Technology Research Gets In-Depth <read>

Bridgeport Registrars: Dustup, Charges, Investigation

“What started out as an investigation into a missing voter registration card a few months ago ultimately led to the unveiling of 50 voter registration cards stashed away in a desk drawer for years.”

CTPost: Registrar of Voters office: Missing cards, gossip and deputy fired <read>

What started out as an investigation into a missing voter registration card a few months ago ultimately led to the unveiling of 50 voter registration cards stashed away in a desk drawer for years.

Republican Registrar of Voters Joseph Borges said he called an office meeting in late April to discuss the party affiliation change of part-time machine technician Jose Morales’ from unaffiliated to Republican.

Borges said he was concerned that Deputy Republican Registrar Theresa Pavia had changed Morales’ voter affiliation in order for the technician to qualify as her deputy chief if Pavia is elected to the position of Republican registrar in November.

Pavia, who makes roughly $48,000 a year as deputy registrar, won her party’s nomination last month for the position Borges plans to vacate once his term ends. Borges, who earns an annual salary of about $63,000, said former party chair Linda Grace has taken out petitions to challenge Pavia…

The Republican registrar then responded by firing his deputy, whom he had appointed four years earlier upon his election to the position. “I let her go because of her attitude and her saying I disliked her,” he said. “I don’t need anybody watching my back who doesn’t trust me.”

Rosenberg said his client told him she thinks she was fired not because of the argument but because an hour prior to the meeting she had given Borges paperwork requesting time off under the Federal Medical Leave Act because her husband is ill. Borges claimed he never saw the paperwork.

Before Pavia left the office, though, she dropped a bombshell. She presented both Borges and Democratic Registrar Santa Ayala a manila envelope containing 50 voter registration cards that she said contained errors made by Ayala and had been sitting in her desk drawer for years.

Two years ago Borges challenged the activities of ACORN in Bridgeport.

Update: 8/24/2010: Connecticut Post: Hearing finds registrar fired with ‘no evidence’ <read>

West Haven Registrar’s Actions Under Scrutiny

The complaints were filed by Charles Marino, former Democratic registrar of voters, and Deborah Evangelista, who worked 16 years as administrative assistant in the registrar’s office before Hufcut took office…Animosity between Hufcut and Marino goes back to 2008, when Hufcut unseated Marino as Democratic registrar in a heated primary election.

New Haven Register: State probing actions of W. Haven registrar <read>

WEST HAVEN — The state is investigating two election-violation complaints stemming from the March 2 Democratic Town Committee primary and subsequent recounts.

Nancy Nicolescu, spokeswoman for the state Election Enforcement Commission, confirmed the commission is reviewing two complaints against Democratic Registrar of Voters Michelle Hufcut. At a March 24 meeting, the commission approved investigatory subpoenas in the case, which authorized the state to seize materials related to the election in question.

The complaints were filed by Charles Marino, former Democratic registrar of voters, and Deborah Evangelista, who worked 16 years as administrative assistant in the registrar’s office before Hufcut took office.

Hufcut Tuesday confirmed the state came in this month and seized ballots and other election materials as part of the investigation. Regarding the complaints, Hufcut dismissed them as politically motivated.

“I don’t think there is any validity. I think it is their attempt to try to discredit me. I think once the state is finished with their investigation, I’ll be vindicated,” Hufcut said.

Evangelista said she and Marino filed the complaints because they were appalled by Hufcut’s handling of the election and recounts.

“It was a fiasco,” Evangelista said…

Animosity between Hufcut and Marino goes back to 2008, when Hufcut unseated Marino as Democratic registrar in a heated primary election. Hufcut at the time decided to challenge Marino after she read a University of Connecticut report that uncovered dead people on statewide voter registration lists, including West Haven.

We tend to go along with that last statement. We recall the controversy involving the two Registrars and the newly elected Hufcut at the November 2008 election, which also involved the Secretary of the State and her advice to Hufcut.

RoundUp: Registrar Error or Election Fraud? – Saving $$$ or Empowering Voters?

Our Editorial: One clear theme in Connecticut this year is saving money. That is certainly an important goal, but the value delivered for expenditures and the value lost in the name of savings should be recognized and considered. Should we stop inspecting highways, bridges, school buses, and buildings because it costs money? Or should we continue because it protects the value of our investment in infrastructure and saves lives? Should we save on election audits and voting? Or should we further empower voters and strengthen voting integrity because we value fair elections and a participatory democracy?

We are likely to have several busy news days over the next few weeks as the General Assembly considers changes to the election laws and the 2010 election heads towards the May party conventions.

Court Rules In Hartford Primary

One slate in Hartford recently accused a registrar of illegally certifying another slate. There is also a potential conflict of interest (probably legal) given that the registrar and two of her relatives are on the slate <earlier coverage> Now a court has ruled the slate should be removed from the ballot, yet because of an appeal the election will go forward with both slates on the ballot. <Courant Article>

“The court has made a finding that there are names on the ballot that do not belong there” [Plaintiffs’ Attorney] Sweeney said…But [Hartford Corporation Counsel] Rose argued that the case boiled down to “an error by the registrar” and said that the court did not have the authority to remove the names from the ballot. [Judge] Peck said she decided not to terminate the stay because if her ruling is eventually overturned, the election would have already been held.

Courant Proposes Cost Savings At The Expense Of Voters

Also today, the Courant has an editorial proposing centralized voting and no excuse absentee voting to save money in elections: Would ‘Vote Centers’ Work? <read> The article touts success in Indiana in saving money. The focus of the editorial is on saving money, but likely at the expense of voter convenience:

Voting centers, an alternative to precinct-based elections, are usually set up in strategic locations and save money because they require fewer workers and voting machines. Centralized electronic voting records are used to ensure security. In some places, centers open before Election Day for early voting. Ideally, vote centers will give local election officials the flexibility to anticipate election turnout and modify the number of locations and the level of staffing…

If the centers have to be open for weeks before the election with paid staff, that might eliminate the savings. If they were only open on Election Day, that might cause crowding that would discourage voting or make it difficult for workers to assist older or handicapped voters. The change in location could inconvenience voters who travel by public transportation…

Even with these caveats, the idea should receive a public airing. We are looking at a massive budget deficit. If regional election centers will save some money, they should be on the table. Perhaps the place to start is with a good idea Ms. Bysiewicz put forward last year, “no excuse” absentee ballots.

We note that these are not early voting centers that add to the convenience of voters, they are a few polling places replacing many at the expense of voter convenience, especially for those dependent on public transportation: From an article reporting the results in Indiana – the savings based on dramatically consolidating polling places: <read>

Vote centers allow ballots to be cast at any county voting location instead of at home precincts. The Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute reported recently the centers would save every county money. Tippecanoe, Cass and Wayne counties have been piloting the idea.

House Democrats aren’t buying the plan. House Elections Chairman Rep. Kreg Battles of Vincennes wants more study because of questions over electronic poll books, security and other matters.

A Porter County Commissioners task force study in 2009 found the cost savings to taxpayers could climb as high as $200,000 per year. The study showed the county’s poll worker numbers would drop from 640 to about 120.

Vote centers also would mean fewer voting machines would be needed. They cost about $4,000 each and need to be replaced every 10 years.

Vote centers would be an added convenience for citizens who would have the choice of voting near work, home or their child’s school. The bill should pass.

Depending on where they work, live, and their children go to school. Its hard to imagine that dramatically less polling places would leave many voters closer to the polls.

As we have stated many times we are opposed to the expansion of absentee voting for any purpose. It disenfranchises voters without their knowledge and risks voting integrity.

Our Testimony On A Flawed Bill

Yesterday we testified to the General Administration and Elections Committee on a bill for Election Day Registration in Connecticut. We support Election Day Registration and testified in favor of the original bill submitted last year. Over the course of the year that bill was changed to a form of absentee voting with little safeguards. This year that bill has been resurrected. I testified in favor of the concept and against the details in the bill. Once again the motivation is to provide an image of voter empowerment with a focus on saving money and the convenience of election officials: <H.B.5321> <Testimony>

I support the good intentions and concepts behind H.B.5321, yet I have serious concerns with the specific approaches in the current bill.

I am generally opposed to the expansion of absentee balloting for any purpose. Absentee ballots have security and integrity risks not associated with regular voting. Election day registration may represent over 10% of the votes in an election. Beyond risks to integrity, in every election absentee voters are disenfranchised without their knowledge in two ways:

First, they may make a simple mistake in following procedures and have their ballot rejected.

Second, voters do not have the opportunity to revote their ballot if by mistake they overvote.

It would serve the voters of Connecticut much better if Election Day Registration (or EDR) were available at each polling place as is the case in five (5) of the six (6) states with EDR as of 2006. Connecticut could follow the examples of Maine, New Hampshire, or Minnesota. We are piloting a less than adequate system, I presume because of concerns with cost and integrity. I recall testimony before the GAE demonstrating the integrity and effectiveness of polling place EDR in Maine.

I would also recommend that any pilot program include a requirement for independent objective analysis with reporting back to the Legislature, rather than relying only on feedback from election officials. When Secretary Bysiewicz chose new election equipment in 2006, she included an independent professional analysis involving citizen evaluation, along with focus groups of citizens and election officials. Without that study we might well have doubled our costs and be voting today on inadequate touch screen voting equipment.

There are several ways in which polling place EDR could be accomplished. Any EDR method will increase some election day costs, yet there would also be savings in other election day and pre-election day costs.

Major improvements to the bill would include:

Requiring voting booths, a ballot box tender, and ballot clerks in central EDR locations to provide the opportunity for a smooth, secure voting process, along with a clear opportunity for voters to correct errors on their ballot.

Allowing single polling place towns to provide EDR in the same building as the polling place, with voters voting by optical scanner as usual.

Requiring towns with central count absentee ballot locations to use an optical scanner for EDR ballots, rather than the using the “absentee ballot” like process.

In summary, the focus should be on enfranchising voters and encouraging participation, while maintaining voting integrity.

We note no testimony in public in favor of the bill’s absentee-like mechanisms for voting. Perhaps some was submitted on paper.

Our Editorial:

One clear theme in Connecticut this year is saving money. That is certainly an important goal, but the value delivered for expenditures and the value lost in the name of savings should be recognized and considered. Should we stop inspecting highways, bridges, school buses, and buildings because it costs money? Or should we continue because it protects the value of our investment in infrastructure and saves lives? Should we save on election audits and voting? Or should we further empower voters and strengthen voting integrity because we value fair elections and a participatory democracy?