I testified for about ten minutes in two segments, one formal and one informal, at the Government Administration and Elections Committee Public Hearing in Norwalk. A separate blog on this site covers the flow as testimony at the Norwalk hearing, another the earlier Norwich hearing. Yesterday, I completed an expanded version of my testimony covering the issues I raised in a little more depth, two or three additional issues, along with some references. My complete testimony is available <here in .pdf> and below in html:
The Table of Contents:
- Introduction
- Issue # 1 Post-Election Audits Unreliable and Ineffective
- Issue # 2 Audit Law Insufficient and Ineffective
- Summary Of Originally Prepared Testimony
- Issue # 3 UConn Testing Indicates Memory Card Problems
- Issue # 4 UConn Testing Indicates Procedures Not Followed
- Issue # 5 UConn Testing Not Ongoing
- Issue # 7 Why Audit Via An Independent Audit Board
- Issue # 8 Why Audit All The Paper In Selected Districts – “Total Auditâ€
- Issue # 9 The Cost Of Audits Vs. The Cost Of Conducting Elections
- A Final Word On Practicality, Long Term Efficiency, And Timeframes
The material up to and including “Summary Of Originally Prepared Testimony” is a slightly expanded version of my prepared remarks. Following that are items discussed informally or not covered verbally in the hearing.
One Change For The Better
My testimony stated “The UConn testing program was not conducted for the Presidential Primary. According to Dr. Shvartsman, he expects that it will be done again for the November 2008 election. Why not test the cards before each primary, election, referendum, and special election?”
Having sent my testimony to the Committee just last night. This morning I received an e-mail from Dr. Shvartsman explaining that they will be doing post-election audit of memory cards. I would be more comfortable if the Secretary of the State had chosen to do pre-election testing of memory cards, however, I am pleased to learn that post-election testing will be done.
