Month: January 2010

NY Times: States put Military votes at risk

“Internet voting is in its infancy, and still far too unreliable, but states are starting to allow it and the trend is accelerating because of a new federal law that requires greater efforts to help military and other overseas voters cast ballots. Men and women in uniform must have a fair opportunity to vote, but allowing online voting in its current state could open elections up to vote theft and other mischief.”

New York Times Editorial: Internet Voting, Still in Beta <read>

Internet voting is in its infancy, and still far too unreliable, but states are starting to allow it and the trend is accelerating because of a new federal law that requires greater efforts to help military and other overseas voters cast ballots. Men and women in uniform must have a fair opportunity to vote, but allowing online voting in its current state could open elections up to vote theft and other mischief…

But the value of removing roadblocks is undermined when votes are put at risk, which can happen when ballots are returned by e-mail or are actually cast on a Web site. Massachusetts recently enacted a law allowing service members to vote by e-mail overseas. According to Verified Voting, a group that works to ensure reliable elections, 16 states allow some form of Internet voting, and more than a dozen — including Alabama, Hawaii, Illinois and Washington — are considering it.

E-mail can be intercepted, and voting Web sites can be hacked or taken down by malicious attacks. There are not even agreed-upon standards for what safety measures are necessary.

In many cases, it is not possible to ensure a secret ballot when votes are cast online or by e-mail. That is a particular concern for military voting, where soldiers could come under pressure from commanding officers about their choice of a candidate.

As is often the case, the Times gets it right when it comes to voting Integrity. We would add that if some votes are at risk, our entire democracy of and by the people is a risk.

Many ask “Why not let the Military and even all citizens vote over the Internet like American Idol?”.  The question is not the problem, but the public and election officials should direct the question to computer scientists and security experts and listen carefully to their answers.

Corey Brinson running to be “Chief Inspiration Officer”

“as the state’s Chief Elections Officer, Corey Brinson will serve as Connecticut’s “Chief Inspirational Officer,” and will inspire a new generation of leaders to run for local and state office. Corey Brinson will also work to ensure that all elections in Connecticut are clean, fair and free from partisan politics.”

Secretary of the State Candidate Corey Brinson press release <read>

In addition to ending the business entity tax, Corey Brinson will seek to attract and retain young professionals in Connecticut by creating and chairing a young professionals’ state commission that will advocate for young professionals throughout Connecticut. “If we can have generous tax credits to attract and retain the movie industry in Connecticut, we should also have generous tax credits to attract and retain young professionals who are Connecticut’s future tax base and leadership,” says Brinson.

What is more, as the state’s Chief Elections Officer, Corey Brinson will serve as Connecticut’s “Chief Inspirational Officer,” and will inspire a new generation of leaders to run for local and state office. Corey Brinson will also work to ensure that all elections in Connecticut are clean, fair and free from partisan politics.

Since announcing his candidacy for Secretary of the State, Brinson has been traveling throughout the state “actively” listening to residents. He has received tremendous support throughout the state from both Democrats and Republicans alike. His campaign has received over $11,000 in small contributions, which count toward his campaign public financing goal of $75,000 in campaign contributions.

We also note that Brinson has posted issues on his web site, which include several items associated with elections and voting integrity:

Elections

  • Fair, clean elections free from partisan politics
  • Inspiring more ordinary people to run for local and state office
  • Increased supervision and training of elections officials
  • Increased resources for voter registration and Election Day turnout
  • Establishing Election Day as a state holiday during even year elections
  • Modification of public finance campaign laws based on feedback from candidates
In addition to ending the business entity tax, Corey Brinson will seek to attract and retain young professionals in
Connecticut by creating and chairing a young professionals’ state commission that will advocate for young
professionals throughout Connecticut. “If we can have generous tax credits to attract and retain the movie
industry in Connecticut, we should also have generous tax credits to attract and retain young professionals who
are Connecticut’s future tax base and leadership,” says Brinson.
What is more, as the state’s Chief Elections Officer, Corey Brinson will serve as Connecticut’s “Chief
Inspirational Officer,” and will inspire a new generation of leaders to run for local and state office. Corey
Brinson will also work to ensure that all elections in Connecticut are clean, fair and free from partisan politics.
Since announcing his candidacy for Secretary of the State, Brinson has been traveling throughout the state
“actively” listening to residents. He has received tremendous support throughout the state from both Democrats
and Republicans alike. His campaign has received over $11,000 in small contributions, which count toward his
campaign public financing goal of $75,000 in campaign contributions.In addition to ending the business entity tax, Corey Brinson will seek to attract and retain young professionals in Connecticut by creating and chairing a young professionals’ state commission that will advocate for young professionals throughout Connecticut. “If we can have generous tax credits to attract and retain the movie industry in Connecticut, we should also have generous tax credits to attract and retain young professionals who are Connecticut’s future tax base and leadership,” says Brinson. What is more, as the state’s Chief Elections Officer, Corey Brinson will serve as Connecticut’s “Chief Inspirational Officer,” and will inspire a new generation of leaders to run for local and state office. Corey Brinson will also work to ensure that all elections in Connecticut are clean, fair and free from partisan politics. Since announcing his candidacy for Secretary of the State, Brinson has been traveling throughout the state “actively” listening to residents. He has received tremendous support throughout the state from both Democrats and Republicans alike. His campaign has received over $11,000 in small contributions, which count toward his campaign public financing goal of $75,000 in campaign contributions.

As the election year progresses, we look forward to further details from Brinson and all of the candidates for Secretary of the State.

FVAP Director: MOVE Act requirement “Unfortunate”, “Unfair”

“But just because we have that one unfortunate provision in the MOVE Act, overall, the Act was a huge improvement for military and overseas voters.

The reason this change in the law is unfortunate is not only that military and overseas voters have to reapply every calendar year, but also because in the off-year, if a military or overseas voter doesn’t apply at the beginning of the year, it is unlikely that they will hear of any special elections in time to apply and receive a ballot because they are announced usually within 60 days of their being held. That’s unfair to these voters.”

We welcome the comment of Bob Carey, Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP)<read>

The FVAP comments on our criticism of the Military and Overseas Voters (MOVE) Act.

A couple of things to which FVAP feels it should respond:

– The MOVE Act is, overall, a HUGE improvement for military and overseas voting rights: requiring States to send ballots out at least 45 days prior, to transmit blank ballots electronically, and to accept the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot for all federal elections will significantly improve voting rights for this population.

– As for the requirement to register again, that is unfortunate, and so that is why FVAP is reaching out as aggressively as it is to make sure all military and overseas voters know to reregister and resubmit their absentee ballot application this year. The reason the law was changed is, as “rjs” said, the belief by most election officials that the previous federal legal requirement that States automatically send ballots resulted in many being returned as undeliverable. However, nation-wide, less than 2.5% of these automatically transmitted ballots were returned as undeliverable. In 2008, Connecticut reported to the Election Assistance Commission that NONE of these ballots were returned as undeliverable.

But just because we have that one unfortunate provision in the MOVE Act, overall, the Act was a huge improvement for military and overseas voters.

The reason this change in the law is unfortunate is not only that military and overseas voters have to reapply every calendar year, but also because in the off-year, if a military or overseas voter doesn’t apply at the beginning of the year, it is unlikely that they will hear of any special elections in time to apply and receive a ballot because they are announced usually within 60 days of their being held. That’s unfair to these voters.

Contact FVAP if you have any further questions. Vote@fvap.ncr.gov.

Bob Carey
Director, Federal Voting Assistance Program

We appreciate all reasonable comments on our blog, especially from officials.  We also appreciate that the FVAP agrees that the re-registration provision is “unfortunate”.  Our opinion remains that it is a significant flaw counter to the purpose of the well-intended act.  In addition, the provision in the MOVE Act for Internet voting pilots is more than a significant flaw, it is dangerous.  Without these provisions we would wholeheartedly support the Act.

Video: Gerry Garcia visits the Glastonbury DTC

“The Secretary of the States’ office really needs an overhaul…the website is not user friendly, its incomplete…I’m of a different generation, a generation that expects… to be able to distribute it accurately, online, in as close to realtime as a system can offer.”

Not the greatest video from my digital camera, but the sound is good.

Don’t choose me just because of my name, but see as a benefit where I come from and how that can impact on the ticket.

In response to my question about the need for more accurate, citizen verifiable election information online:

The Secretary of the States’ office really needs an overhaul…the website is not user friendly, its incomplete…I’m of a different generation, a generation that expects… to be able to distribute it accurately, online, in as close to realtime as a system can offer.

What attracted you to the office of Secretary of the State?

What excites me…I am actually passionate about giving voice…I what is not there, who is not at the table…who gets a voice and has standing is deeply personal for me…the SOTS office should be the one stop point of contact for small bussiness in Connecticut…I have no designs on any other office.

I’m the only candidate for any constitutional office, so far, to have opted in to the Citizens Elections Program…I hear a lot of people running for office talking about the program, applauding the program

See the video: Colbert, McCain, Feingold, and the people THEN add your support

NOW HEREBY BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE THE UNDERSIGNED VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES CALL UPON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PASS AND SEND TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO RESTORE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FAIR ELECTIONS TO THE PEOPLE.

FreeSpeechForPeople <video>

Background:  Supreme Court rules corporations are people: <read>

Resolution:

WHEREAS the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was designed to protect the free speech rights of people, not corporations;

WHEREAS, for the past three decades, a divided United States Supreme Court has transformed the First Amendment into a powerful tool for corporations seeking to evade and invalidate democratically-enacted reforms;

WHEREAS, this corporate takeover of the First Amendment has reached its extreme conclusion in the United States Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Citizens United v. FEC;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC overturned longstanding precedent prohibiting corporations from spending their general treasury funds in our elections;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC will now unleash a torrent of corporate money in our political process unmatched by any campaign expenditure totals in United States history;

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC presents a serious and direct threat to our democracy;

WHEREAS, the people of the United States have previously used the constitutional amendment process to correct those egregiously wrong decisions of the United States Supreme Court that go to the heart of our democracy and self-government;

NOW HEREBY BE IT RESOLVED THAT WE THE UNDERSIGNED VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES CALL UPON THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO PASS AND SEND TO THE STATES FOR RATIFICATION A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO RESTORE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FAIR ELECTIONS TO THE PEOPLE.

Read and add your support.

Activist Court OK With Foreign Intervention In U.S. Elections

Activist Court OK With Foreign Intervention In U.S. Elections

“Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.”

Article by David Corn covering John Paul Stevens accusation of  “Activist Court” and reasons for dissent: <read>

By ruling today that corporations and unions can independently spend as much money as they want to back or trash congressional and presidential candidates, the conservative Supreme Court justices are throwing out over a century of jurisprudence that backed the regulation of corporate involvement in elections. Yet will the right denounce the five-to-four decision as an act of judicial overreach? That’s not likely. But Justice John Paul Stevens, in a stinging dissent written for the minority, argues that the right wing of the court has engaged in a brazen act of activism–and has done so to award corporations more legal rights than they have previously been afforded.

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/stevens-accuses-supreme-court-conservatives-judicial-activism

Justice Stevens makes some good arguments, the most surprising given the conservatives concerns when the Court makes decisions on foreign precedents:

Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.

Statement from people for the American Way<read>

NPR Coverage <read>

The ruling could unleash a new flood of corporate cash into the political realm just as the nation enters the pivotal 2010 midterm congressional primaries and election season.

By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, overturning a 20-year-old decision that barred such contributions.

“We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. “The court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations.”

The new ruling blurs the lines between corporate and individual contributions in political campaigns. It also strikes down part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that banned unions and corporations from paying for political ads in the waning days of campaigns…

For example, the decision removes limits on independent expenditures by corporations that are not coordinated with candidates’ campaigns.

“As long as they do it independently, they can spend whatever they want,” notes NPR’s Nina Totenberg. “It will undoubtedly help Republican candidates since corporations have generally supported Republican candidates more.”

New Registrar and Two Databases add to campaign dustup

Fred DeCaro III, the Republican registrar of voters, said two separate databases have been used by the town over the years to record votes and one wasn’t checked when his office received its first inquiry on McMahon in September.

CTPost Article:  All eyes on McMahon’s voting record in Greenwich <read>

Linda McMahon’s campaign says it has new evidence debunking a claim by chief GOP Senate rival Rob Simmons that she has only showed up to vote in two elections in her hometown of Greenwich.

The campaign furnished Greenwich Time Monday with a letter from the assistant Republican registrar of voters vouching that McMahon voted in the November elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008 and 2009…

“Rob Simmons allowed his campaign to peddle false and misleading attacks against Linda even after they knew their claims were false,” said Ed Patru, a spokesman for McMahon. “That’s a commentary on his character, it undermines a core line of attack he’s been using against Linda, and it damages his credibility.”…

A Sept. 23 letter from the same deputy registrar, Ruby Durant, was the basis for the campaign’s earlier claims that McMahon had only voted in the 2002 and 2008 general elections, according to Shah…

Fred DeCaro III, the Republican registrar of voters, said two separate databases have been used by the town over the years to record votes and one wasn’t checked when his office received its first inquiry on McMahon in September.

“I’m confident that at the very least she voted the number of times in (the Dec. 22) letter,” said DeCaro, who has only been in office for a year. “Obviously, it’s important, and we want to make sure we have the right information.”

We note with interest the overlap of the dates that the original list was 2002 and 2008 while the second list was 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008, and 2009.  We would normally expect the shorter  list to have come from one database of the two and that it would have included only the earliest or the latest dates.  Could they have alternated databases rather than replacing one with the other?

Integrity and Credibility in Massachusetts

Perhaps the election will be close, less than 0.5% with a very careful recount or a runaway for one side or the other. But otherwise the 1st casualty will be credibility. No matter who wins there are likely to be unsatisfactorily answered questions.

Stories from the Detroit< FreePress and BradBlog about the possibility of the election in Massachusetts being stolen by Democrats or Republicans <BradBlog> <FreePress>

From BradBlog:

The near-entirety of the state will vote next Tuesday on paper ballots to be counted by Diebold op-scan systems. The same ones used dubiously in the New Hampshire Primary in 2008, and the same ones notoriously hacked — resulting in a flipped mock election — in HBO’s Emmy-nominated Hacking Democracy.

And to make matters even worse, the notorious LHS Associates — the private company with the criminal background that has admitted to illegally tampering with memory cards during elections, and which has a Director of Sales and Marketing who embarrassed himself with obscene comments here at The BRAD BLOG some years ago, resulting in his being barred from CT by their Sec. of State — sells and services almost all of MA’s voting machines along with those in the rest of New England.

From the FreePress:

In Massachusetts, a recount only occurs if the final results are less than half of one percent, and as election reform activist John Bonifaz points out, Massachusetts does not require random audits of the computerized vote counting machines to compare the computer results to the optical scan ballots marked by the voters. Bonifaz notes that in the Al Franken-Norm Coleman Minnesota Senate race in 2008, “everything was ultimately hand-counted.” The problem in Massachusetts hinges on whether the race is close enough to trigger a recount, which candidates can peition for within thirty days…

Given the Democratic party’s astonishing lack of leadership on so many issues, it is entirely possible that Scott Brown could legitimately beat Martha Coakley in this election.

But it is also possible that the outcome could be manipulated by the companies in control of the registration rolls and vote counts. It will be up to citizen election protection activists to make sure that doesn’t happen yet again.

Perhaps the election will be close, less than 0.5% with a very careful recount or a runaway for one side or the other.  But otherwise the 1st casualty will be credibility.  No matter who wins there are likely to be unsatisfactorily answered questions.  Massachusetts, like all states, needs effective, credible post-election audits along with a  strong, transparent chain-of-custody.  Ironically Massachusetts has paper ballots and was used as proof of the reliability of Diebold equipment and LHS service, because no problems had been discovered after years of use – but without post-election audits how would problems be recognized?

Third Republican Candidate For SOTS?

Farrell has scheduled a press conference, 3 p.m., Jan. 19 at Component Engineers in Wallingford, to officially announce what position he will seek, but a number of sources, both locally and statewide, hinted Wednesday that he would announce a run at the position of Secretary of the State.

Meriden Record Journal: Farrell likely to seek Secretary of the State position <read>

Jerry Farrell Jr. seems to have received the support of his fellow Republicans, both locally and on the state level, as he makes his first push for a statewide elected position.

Farrell, who has served as a Republican member of the Wallingford Town Council since 1995 and was appointed commissioner of the state Department of Consumer Protection by Gov. M. Jodi Rell in 2006, announced Tuesday that he intends to run for a statewide office this November, but would not say which one.

Farrell has scheduled a press conference, 3 p.m., Jan. 19 at Component Engineers in Wallingford, to officially announce what position he will seek, but a number of sources, both locally and statewide, hinted Wednesday that he would announce a run at the position of Secretary of the State.

HatCityBLOG: Sen Merrill makes her case for SOTS

Video as Denise Merrill makes her case to the Danbury Democratic Town Committee for Secretary of the State

Video as Denise Merrill makes her case to the Danbury Democratic Town Committee for Secretary of the State <video>

Some of Rep Merrill’s statements: Would ask registrars, towns, and cities what they think would work.  So far, the State is not good at information technology.  Would help make democracy work for everybody.  Would listen to people about what works and dosen’t work.

Merrill was introduced by Rep Godfrey who supports her and whose name has come up on CTVotersCount previously, related to voting integrity:  <Here> <Here>