June, 2009 | CTVotersCount.org

Results of Post-Election Audit of the May 4th Municipal Election

This time we agree with the Secretary of the State on the post-election audit results in Naugatuck. Both people and machines can count very accurately. That is what we should always expect of election officials.

Article from:?????? Secretary of the State’s Electronic Newsletter
Issue 39 June 4, 2009:

POST-ELECTION AUDIT OF TWO NAUGATUCK PRECINCTS SHOWS
ACCURATE MACHINE COUNT ON MAY 4th MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

The results of the latest hand count audits of election results in Connecticut are in: once again, our machine counts were extremely accurate. Post-election audits conducted at two polling places in Naugatuck showed extremely accurate machine counts during the Municipal Elections held May 4, 2009. Polling places located at Central Avenue and Oak Terrace in Naugatuck were chosen at random on May 8th to undergo hand count audits of the machine totals for the May Municipal Elections, representing 10% of all voting precincts in Connecticut for that election. As required by Public Act 07-194, An Act Concerning the Integrity and Security of the Voting Process, 10% percent of the polling precincts used in the election are subject to an audit. Deputy Secretary Lesley Mara directed that the audit precincts be chosen from a pool of 13 precincts in the six towns that held municipal elections May 4th. This pool did not count precincts that required a recount. A review of the audit results has been completed by the Office of the Secretary of State and showed that there was no discrepancy in the counts at the Oak Terrace precinct, while there was only a discrepancy of one vote at the Central Avenue precinct in the race for City Treasurer out of nearly 800 cast. In the majority of cases, small discrepancies between machine totals and hand-counts are due to human error in the auditing process. Once again, these hand count audits have reinforced the integrity of our elections and show that our optical scan voting system is secure and extremely accurate. No matter the size of the election, Connecticut’s post-election audit procedures are the toughest in the nation and they exist to ensure that the will of the voters expressed by the paper ballots is reflected in the machine counts on Election Day. Connecticut voters can be confident in the integrity of our elections and that their votes are counted correctly.

We agree that “In the majority of cases, small discrepancies between machine totals and hand-counts are due to human error in the auditing process”. However, that the majority of discrepancies are manual count inaccuracies is insufficient. We raise the concern that when differences are found, at a minimum, recounts should be performed by local officials until two counts agree – either the machine and a manual count or two manual counts.

We observed the audit in Naugatuck. The first count of ballots for each district were each off by one ballot, the officials recounted and found where the initial manual count was incorrect. When vote counts were off they recounted until they were convinced that their manual counts were accurate. That should be the standard met by all audits, in every municipality, in every election. The Coalition reports show significant discrepancies in municipal counts in previous audits, while recounts of the manual counts by the Secretary of the State’s Office show that people can count inaccurately and that people can also count accurately <read>

We appreciate the Secretary of the State’s Office, Deput Mara, and Naugatuck election officials for conducting the audit and the Secretary of the State for reaffirming the value of audits. No election and no vote is exempt from the risk of error and fraud. There is more work to do, more gaps to close <read>

CT: 2009 Regular Session Legislative Roundup/Wrapup

This year, CTVotesCount supported several bills, opposed several bills, and took no positions on other bills related to elections and voting. The regular session ended at midnight June 3rd with a special session scheduled for later in June to address the budget and possibly some other issues. In this post we will provide updates on the status of bills of interest as we are made aware of their final status.

This year, CTVotesCount supported several bills, opposed several bills, and took no positions on other bills related to elections and voting. The regular session ended at midnight June 3rd with a special session likely to be scheduled for later in June to address the budget and possibly some other issues. In this post we will provide our understanding of the status of bills of interest. There may be updates as we learn more.

Finding the actual status of bills can be a challenge. Bills are often rewritten and introduced with a new bill number. Some bills are extensively changed or completely rewritten by amendments. In a few cases an amendment completely changes the intent and the subject of a bill, while the bill’s title cannot be changed!

Perhaps more challenging is determining the major reasons/cause of a bill’s demise without action by one or both houses of the legislature: Did the legislature just run out of time, with the Committee Chair and Leadership prioritizing other bills? Was there mild support or substantial opposition? Would one house pass the bill and the other trash it? Would a veto by the Governor be likely? How would a veto be viewed by the public? Or did the bill simply need more work to make in politically acceptable or workable in practice? We will take some educated guesses.

General Comments on the 2009 Session:

In our limited experience, this year is typical of the last few years. Many bills are introduced. A substantial number receive committee hearings, followed by a smaller, yet still substantial number passing committees. But, a small subset are ever introduced and debated in either the House or the Senate. The structure of the system provides many opportunities for members to express support or opposition to bills along with many “reasons” for hard work and support to end with no results. Many blame partisanship, leveling charges at one side or the other: Democrats are blamed for a “do noting” session and Republicans are seen as “obstructionist”. However, the system providing extended debate, in a relatively small window, at the end of the legislative session, with an absolute deadline, makes this all (or so little) possible.

Naturally, we are relieved when bills with concepts we generally oppose or bills that have unintended consequences are not enacted one way or another. But we are equally disappointed when important issues and bills do not receive the attention we believe is appropriate.

Bills:

H.B. 5226 AN ACT CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF POLLING PLACES FOR A PRIMARY.
Would have allowed towns to determine polling places for a primary, greatly reducing costs. Passed the GAE Committee but never introduced in either house.

H.B. 5903 -AN ACT CONCERNING ABSENTEE VOTING FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES STATIONED OVERSEAS.
This bill would provide additional time and support for military voters to receive and return absentee ballots. CTVotersCount and Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz opposed the provisions in this bill that would have allowed risky voting via internet, fax, or email. It was passed without discussion by the GAE Commitee, but later amended by Chairman Spallone to remove that objectionable provision. According to the legislative web site it was not introduced for a vote in either house.

H.B. 6435 – AN ACT CONCERNING ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION AND PRESIDENTIAL BALLOT PROCEDURES.
CTVotersCount, the League of Women Voters, and Common Cause suported this bill. It was later amended to contain risky provisions for associated ballot security. The final version had an acceptable compromise treating associated ballots in a very similar manner to absentee ballots. It passed the House but was never taken up in the Senate. It was more likely than not to be vetoed by the Governor. However, it faced perhaps an even chance for a veto to be overriden.

H.B. 6437 – AN ACT CONCERNING AN AGREEMENT AMONG THE STATES TO ELECT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE.
This bill would support the National Popular Vote Compact providing a back-door way for the popular election of the President. While sounding attractive it has serious unintended consequences. The bill was generally supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. CTVotersCount and Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz opposed the Agreement. In early May, it squeaked by the House. Our reading is that it has luke warm support in the Senate and might not have passed there – it then would have faced an all but guaranteed veto, with no chance of override.

H.B. 6440 – AN ACT CONCERNING CERTAIN REVISIONS TO ELECTIONS RELATED STATUTES.
This was a so called “technical bill” requested by the Secretary of the State that would have made several minor changes in the election statutes, primarily changing details of wording and substance from lever “machines” to optical scan “tabulators”. Several groups opposed changes to loosen absentee ballot application distribution requirements – these provisions were removed. CTVotersCount opposed changes in the audit law that would have weakened the audit coverage of races; opposed provisons that would weaken the randomness of the audit while disproportionately adding audit costs to small and medium sized towns. We supported a provison to mandate completion of the audits within 10 business days of the election, replacing current provisions which mandate audits do not begin until 15 days after the election. A beneficial provision was added which would have provided for enforcement of audit procedures issued by the Secretary of the State. This bill passed the House on 5/21, but according to the legislative web site it was not introduced for a vote in the Senate. Overall we have mixed feelings on the bill given the plusses and minuses. We are surprised it was not passed by both houses by consent.

H.B. 6441 – AN ACT CONCERNING CONFIDENCE IN THE CONNECTICUT ELECTION SYSTEM.
Proposed and supported by CTVotersCount, this bill would have gone a long way to improve the integrity and efficiency of post-election audits, election results accounting, and the chain-of-custody in Connecticut. It would have closed many of the gaps identified by the Coaltion at negligible cost. We appreciate the support of our Senator and Representative (Handley and Kehoe) in initiating action. We appreciate the introduction and hearings on the bill initiated by GAE Chair Spallone. Unfortunately, the committee did not place a priority on the bill in this session. Our intentions are to continue to draw attention to the inadequacy of the current law, to propose an even more attractive bill next year, and to gather wider support.

H.J 113 – RESOLUTION AMENDING THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW EARLY VOTING. (And No Excuse Absentee Voting)
CTVotersCount is conditionally opposed to the expansion of absentee voting and early voting. There are integrity, security, and franchise concerns which need to be addressed. We do not have or see solutions to these concerns for scientific and practical reasons. This bill passed the GAE Committee but was not taken up by either house.

S.B. 909 – AN ACT CONCERNING TECHNICAL CHANGES TO ELECTION LAWS.
Supported by CTVotersCount. Technical changes proposed by the Secretary of the State’s Office. Passed by the GAE Commitee. Provisions largely rolled into an amendment to H.B. 6440 (see the discussion above on that bill)

S.B. 913 – AN ACT CONCERNING UNITED STATES SENATE VACANCIES
This bill would replace appointment of U.S. Senate vacancies by the Governor with an election. Was passed by the Senate and House. The Governor is expected to veto the bill. A veto override is likely. <Courant> < CT News Junkie>

S.J. 43 – RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION CONCERNING VOTING BY ABSENTEE BALLOT.
Passed the GAE Commitee, never taken up by either house. Provisons seem to have been rolled into H.J. 113 (see discussion under that bill above)

Barbara Simons: The Internet and Voting: Worth Doing Right

Recently we were dissapointed when the Huffington Post ran a PR piece from Everyone Counts touting their risky election technology used in a Honolulu election. Now, Huffington Post has provided a platform for an expert technologist’s view.

Recently we were dissapointed when the Huffington Post ran a PR piece from Everyone Counts touting their risky election technology used in a Honolulu election: Did Hawaii and Honolulu Defy Own Laws, Science, and Common Sense?. Now, Huffington Post has provided a platform for an expert technologist’s view.

Barbara Simons is the only technologist on the Board of Advisors of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. She is a recognized expert on voting integrity and security. She was also President of the Association for Computing Machinery.

She refutes the contention that technologists are intimidated by technology:

In response to multiple efforts to allow voting over the Internet in major elections, many of our nation’s prominent technology experts have signed a statement cautioning against adopting Internet-based voting systems without first understanding and guarding against the numerous and well-documented dangers. This is not because, as Mr. Contorer suggests, those opposing Internet voting find “[t]he introduction of technology to any process … scary”. The signatories to this statement are not at all intimidated by technology; in fact many are established experts in voting systems who are most certainly aware of the major risks associated with Internet voting.

Simons then explains that ATM Banking and voting are different:

The article asserts that since we are able to conduct banking and commerce over the Internet, we should also be able to vote over the Internet. This is a common misconception (or misrepresentation) that is often made when attempting to support Internet-based voting. Banks spend considerable time and money to ensure the security of our assets, yet there are still risks. Identity theft and fraud affect millions of Americans and cost billions of dollars each year. When we can detect such fraud it is because we are able to track our money through each transaction from start to finish, including the people associated with those transactions.

However, elections by their very definition disallow this type of explicit end-to-end auditing. Voters must cast their ballot in secret and not be able to prove to others how they voted. Election officials must not be able to tie votes to citizens except in very narrow circumstances as carved out by law. The lack of these basic protections make Internet-based voting a dangerous idea and place it so far from the realm of Internet banking or commerce as to make the author’s point moot.

There are significant security issues that any vendor must address before declaring such a system fit for public elections. Yet the author glosses over these security issues raised by Internet voting, referring several times to “military-grade encryption.” It is a well-known marketing technique of voting system vendors to tout the strength of their encryption because it sounds impressive. But the fact is that encryption is only a secondary part of any electronic security.

Technology can help in elections:

Americans deserve the best electoral system available. There are many options for making elections more accessible, secure, and efficient, and the Internet will have a role to play. Current possibilities that show promise include the easier maintenance of voter registration records and the distribution of blank absentee ballots. But we should not subject our democracy to the costs or risks of current Internet-based voting schemes.

We recommend reading the entire post <read>