Author: Luther Weeks

Daughters (Sons and Elders) head Jonathan Simon’s advice to his Daughter.

Jonathan Simon, via WhoWhatWhy.org Letter to My Nonvoting Daughter:

“My daughter, 28, recently wrote in an email to me, “I’m so disappointed in how the world is right now, I don’t vote because of it.”

Here is my response to her.

Dear L_____,

A lecture is coming that you’ll probably feel you could live without. Nevertheless, I persist.

Reminiscent of our past post:

THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE YOUR VOTE WON’T COUNT – IS TO NOT VOTE.

Jonathan Simon, via WhoWhatWhy.org Letter to My Nonvoting Daughter:

“My daughter, 28, recently wrote in an email to me, “I’m so disappointed in how the world is right now, I don’t vote because of it.”

Here is my response to her.

Dear L_____,

A lecture is coming that you’ll probably feel you could live without. Nevertheless, I persist.

I don’t blame you for being disappointed, or worse. But when you’re disappointed and frustrated and angry with how the world is, that’s just the time to vote!

Now that may sound strange coming from someone who you know has challenged the honesty of our electoral process for 20 years.

If you wanted to organize a mass boycott of elections (or a mass consumer boycott or general strike, for that matter), perhaps I could support that. But that takes a lot of work. Simply not voting yourself takes no work — in fact, it saves time and energy. Great!

Just recognize, though, that what you’re doing, others like you are also doing — others who are, like you, “disappointed in how the world is.” (By the way, the world has always found ways to be disappointing.) So then who is left to change it?

And yes, one vote (or two or three) seems very tiny, not at all powerful or consequential. If you don’t vote, it won’t be missed — after all, how many elections are ever won by a single vote? Virtually none. And add to that your doubts about the count to boot! You can certainly make a logical case that it’s not worth your time.

But then, do you see, it’s not worth anybody’s time! And that’s the end of democracy…”

Reminiscent of our past post:

THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE YOUR VOTE WON’T COUNT – IS TO NOT VOTE.

A flawed new version of Risk Limiting Audit bill moves forward in the General Assembly

Last month I wrote about S.B.472 for Risk Limiting Audits, despite all but unanimous testimony that the bill was highly flawed, a flawed substitute was passed shortly thereafter by the General Administration and Elections Committee. Last week that revised bill became available on the web, allowing public scrutiny. There is a Word version and a .pdf version, the .pdf version has a fiscal note and an Office of Legislative (OLR) analysis.

It is revised from the original with some improvements, yet remains ambiguous and confusing, although now it may be closer to an actual Risk Limiting Audit. I question if the person(s) who wrote this updated bill had or took advantage of review by anyone familiar with the science of Risk Limiting Audits. Considering the fiscal note and the OLR Analysis, it seems to me that the description in some cases reads things into the bill that do not seem to be reflected in the bill. In particular, it assumes costs and roles for UConn that are not clear in the bill. Costs and roles that would be consistent with the prototype last year, but not obvious in the bill that would become law.

Last month I wrote about S.B.472 for Risk Limiting Audits, despite all but unanimous testimony that the bill was highly flawed, a flawed substitute was passed shortly thereafter by the General Administration and Elections Committee. Last week that revised bill became available on the web, allowing public scrutiny. There is a Word version and a .pdf version, the .pdf version has a fiscal note and an Office of Legislative (OLR) analysis  (Read it here.)  Read our testimony on the original bill and that of others (Here.)

It is revised from the original with some improvements, yet remains ambiguous and confusing, although now it may be closer to an actual Risk Limiting Audit. I question if the person(s) who wrote this updated bill had or took advantage of review by anyone familiar with the science of Risk Limiting Audits. Considering the fiscal note and the OLR Analysis, it seems to me that the description in some cases reads things into the bill that do not seem to be reflected in the bill. In particular, it assumes costs and roles for UConn that are not clear in the bill. Costs and roles that would be consistent with the prototype last year, but not obvious in the bill that would become law.

There are some welcome changes:

  • This version delays a full RLA until 2024 rather than 2022. This will allow time for planning, especially important since we will have a new Secretary of the State (SOTS) in January 2023. This also provides time for future revisions to the law prior to Nov 2024.
  • This version makes a complete new section for RLAs from the existing and continuing 5% audit which still applies to all primaries and odd-year elections. This makes the bill easier to read and perhaps contributes to its improvements, clarity and perhaps facilitating clarity in future improvements. Yet it copies text that is appropriate to the existing audits but not for RLAs.
  • It seems to have better, if imperfect, definitions of RLAs, closer torecognized standard definitions.
  • It arguably requires that manifest creation be open to the public.

Yet, in my reading, there remain new and old problems:

  • It continues the lack of specific notice requirements. In every very case where something is open to the public, there should a clear notice requirement specifying how far in advance each event should be notices (e.g. 48 hours) and where the notice will appear (e.g. a specific place on the SOTS Web.)
  • Like the original it has no requirements for close public observation, software independence, and public access to information critical to verifying the audit. It should clearly require standard, recognized statistical evidence, the review of samples of actual paper ballots, and public access to algorithms and data necessary to independently verify the results of the audit.
  • It continues the ambiguous requirements that UConn report on the audit, send the report to the SOTS and the SOTS file it with the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC). The weakness is that the current law and this bill provide no deadline for such filing. Many reports of audits since 2008 have yet to be published by UConn, published by the SOTS, or filed with the SEEC. Also in practice these are not independent reports. The UConn Voter Center is dependent on the SOTS for its budget and in practice draft reports are reviewed by the SOTS Office and revised by UConn before they are accepted.
  • It continues the ambiguous language that candidates can use evidence from the audit to challenge an election in court until seven days after the audit is complete, yet provides no definition of completion of the audit. It would seem that an audit is not complete until a report is filled and published by the SEEC. If so, given history, candidates could challenge an election for years after. See Sec. 4 Section 9-323 (page 11) and Sec. 5. Section 9-324 (page 13) and Sec. 6. Section 9-328 (page 15) or Sec. 7. Subsection (a) of section 9-29a (page 16).
  • It requires that presidential electors, all statewide offices including one U.S. Senator, a randomly chosen Congressional race, and 5% of General Assembly offices be audited in even years. Precluding audits of any other offices in even years, such as Judge of Probate and Registrar of voters from any audit.
  • It continues the current flaw in the law that exempts questions from audit. I wonder if anyone would have any concerns if the Early Voting or No-Excuse Absentee Voting questions were to pass or fail by small margins? Would those be concerns be magnified realizing they were exempt from the audit?
  • Recanvassed races (CT’s hand and machine recounts) are included in the RLAs. General Assembly races that have been recanvassed are automatically included in the 5% that are subject to RLA. I wonder if they realize that such races, since they are close, will often end in a complete hand recount? If the intent is to hand-recount all such races, why not do the hand recount instead of the recanvass?
  • The timing of ballot manifest creation seems to be part of the process of the initial close of the polls on election night and is specified as open to the public – an improvement over the original bill. However, other laws allow counting to be interrupted and completed within 48 hours, without any public notice requirements for the date, time and location of where counting will resume.
  • While the non-binding Fiscal Note and OLR Analysis added below the bill seems to indicate that UConn will be part of conducting the audit, the bill mirrors the requirements of the existing 5% audit, where the SOTS creates the procedures for the RLA, the Registrars conduct the RLA submitting results to UConn, who submits a report to the SOTS.
    • It is hard to imagine the Registrars (two independent D and R election officials in each of 169 towns) coordinating a state wide RLA, including escalation, and results without some body coordinating the state wide calculations, decision making, and declaring the final result.
    • It seems the Registrars determine if the audit meets the risk limit or not and then based on that the SOTS shall order a manual recount. See Section 1 (e).

Perhaps some of these concerns can be cured/overridden by procedures issued by the SOTS. See Section 1 (d). However one should question if the SOTS can write binding procedures, opinions, or declarations which contradict the text of state law.

Testimony on two election bills. One poorly written, the other needing more.

Yesterday I submitted testimony on two bills before the GAE (General Administration and Elections Committee. Unfortunately I was unable to testify in person. It was not for a lack of trying. I had submitted testimony and signed up for the hearing two days in advance, yet only one of my two testimonies was posted in time for the hearing and neither I nor the committee staff could get me the link to testify. Its happened before this year and last, yet only for this committee – in the past the staff was able to correct the problems. In one case not much was lost except to my reputation as the committee still called may name when I was supposed to testify.

S.B.472 Would change our existing 5% audit, adding risk-limiting audits. Unfortunately it is a highly flawed bill. I submitted the most detailed testimony, articulating its many flaws new and existing. Fortunately the testimony, so far, us unanimously against the current bill, with more on the way. Overall no harm done that I could not speak. It would seem that its is very unlikely to move forward this year.

H.J.114 The Constitutional Amendment to provide for no-excuse absentee voting. In this case, not being able to testify in person and my testimony not being up hurt. I am likely the only person speaking and submitting testimony asking that the bill remove another unfortunate restriction in the Constitution that will bite us along the way with absentee voting and/or ranked choice voting. Of course we can wait and learn our lesson the hard way.

Yesterday I submitted testimony on two bills before the GAE (General Administration and Elections Committee.) Unfortunately I was unable to testify in person. It was not for a lack of trying. I had submitted testimony and signed up for the hearing two days in advance, yet only one of my two testimonies was posted in time for the hearing and neither I nor the committee staff could get me the link to testify. Its happened before this year and last, yet only for this committee –  in the past the staff was able to correct the problems. In one case not much was lost except to my reputation as the committee still called may name when I was supposed to testify.

S.B.472 Would change our existing 5% audit, adding risk-limiting audits. Unfortunately it is a highly flawed bill. I submitted the most detailed testimony, articulating its many flaws new and existing. Fortunately the testimony, so far, us unanimously against the current bill, with more on the way. Here is the testimony so far: <read>. Overall no harm done that I could not speak. It would seem that its is very unlikely to move forward this year.

H.J.114 The Constitutional Amendment to provide for no-excuse absentee voting. In this case, not being able to testify in person and my testimony not being up hurt. I am likely the only person speaking and submitting testimony asking that the bill remove another unfortunate restriction in the Constitution that will bite us along the way with absentee voting and/or ranked choice voting. Of course we can wait and learn our lesson the hard way. Here is all the testimony so far, now including mine: <read>

I thank all the nationally recognized experts in Risk Limiting Audits and advocates from around the country who testified in person and submitted testimony.

Also a shout out to Chris Prue and ROVAC for catching a civil rights issue that we opposed last year and was a section of another bill being heard this yesterday, the testimony by Chris Prue: <Video 4:04 in>

Testimony: Suggest Correcting Two Serious Flaws in the Law.

 

Yesterday I testified on a technical elections bill that the General Assembly should go farther in two regards:

Transparency, Ballot Security, and Public Verifiability are the basis for justified confidence in our elections. So much more important now that many question the integrity of our elections.

As I testified in 2016 and 2015, existing law and a new law providing for interrupted counting lasting up to 48 hours have serious flaws:

  • First, the new law for interrupted counting did not provide any method for the public, candidates, or parties to be notified when counting was to resume.

Second, since the inception of optical scanners in 2007 the law has never recognized that ballots are cast in polling places. That portion of the law assumes, apparently, that we are still using lever machines.

It is long past time for Connecticut to begin a path toward full transparency, public verifiability, and protecting our paper ballots, upon which justified confidence in elections is based. <testimony>

 

Yesterday I testified on a technical elections bill that the General Assembly should go farther in two regards:

Transparency, Ballot Security, and Public Verifiability are the basis for justified confidence in our elections. So much more important now that many question the integrity of our elections.

As I testified in 2016 and 2015, existing law and a new law providing for interrupted counting lasting up to 48 hours have serious flaws:

  • First, the new law for interrupted counting did not provide any method for the public, candidates, or parties to be notified when counting was to resume.

Second, since the inception of optical scanners in 2007 the law has never recognized that ballots are cast in polling places. That portion of the law assumes, apparently, that we are still using lever machines.

It is long past time for Connecticut to begin a path toward full transparency, public verifiability, and protecting our paper ballots, upon which justified confidence in elections is based. <testimony>

Insiders are a great threat to elections

It is refreshing to see that main stream media is beginning to recognize the threat of insiders to elections.  I agree that election officials are by and large of high integrity, however just like other officials a few are not. Insiders can have access to a wide range of election equipment, ballots, and other data that create and verify election results. A recent Associated Press article by Christia A. Cassidy points that out:

In a handful of states, authorities are investigating whether local officials directed or aided in suspected security breaches at their own election offices. At least some have expressed doubt about the 2020 presidential election, and information gleaned from the breaches has surfaced in conspiracy theories pushed by allies of former President Donald Trump.

Insiders are not just election officials, other insiders include town hall employees in the mail room and network/computer staff, janitors with access to storage areas and election offices; They include post office workers and various vendor personal with access to networks or to repair election equipment. Here are some examples from Connecticut and elsewhere:

It is refreshing to see that main stream media is beginning to recognize the threat of insiders to elections.  I agree that election officials are by and large of high integrity, however just like other officials a few are not. Insiders can have access to a wide range of election equipment, ballots, and other data that create and verify election results. A recent Associated Press article by Christia A. Cassidy points that out: Attacks from within seen as a growing threat to elections

In a handful of states, authorities are investigating whether local officials directed or aided in suspected security breaches at their own election offices. At least some have expressed doubt about the 2020 presidential election, and information gleaned from the breaches has surfaced in conspiracy theories pushed by allies of former President Donald Trump.

Adding to the concern is a wave of candidates for state and local election offices this year who parrot Trump’s false claims about his loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

“Putting them in positions of authority over elections is akin to putting arsonists in charge of a fire department,” said Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat and former law school dean who serves as Michigan’s top elections official.

Insiders are not just election officials, other insiders include town hall employees in the mail room and network/computer staff, janitors with access to storage areas and election offices; They include post office workers and various vendor personal with access to networks or to repair election equipment.

Here are some examples from Connecticut and elsewhere:

CO: Colorado clerk is indicted for election tampering and misconduct

CT: VotING fraud via Absentee, this time in Stamford

CT: Chain-Of-Custody Education In Haddam

CT: Sometimes it is just incompetence, insufficient laws and procedures:
Judge orders primary after Bloomfield Democrats sue their own party registrar over petition rejection

Dead Men Don’t Vote (New Podcast)

My friends at OSET (Open Source Election Technology just officially launched a new podcast yesterday: Dead Men Don’t vote. Its goal it to explain all that officials do under the covers to run our elections. The 1st episode, Do Dead People Actually Vote?, lived up to that goal. They packed a lot into 33 minutes. <link>

 

My friends at OSET (Open Source Election Technology just officially launched a new podcast yesterday: Dead Men Don’t vote. Its goal it to explain all that officials do under the covers to run our elections.  The 1st episode, Do Dead People Actually Vote?, lived up to that goal. They packed a lot into 33 minutes. <link>

 

A provision of the Freedom to Vote Act reduces credibility, defying common sense

There is a lot that needs to be improved in our elections. The current bill before Senate and House, the Freedom to Vote Act, is well intended yet in at least one provision it actually makes elections less secure, less likely to provide public confidence. This is a change from previous bills H.R.1 and all version of S.1.

This new provision would prevent observers from within eight feet of ballots until after certification. That would make it impossible for observers to actually see that votes were counted and totaled accurately in audits and recounts (recanvasses in CT).

There is a lot that needs to be improved in our elections. The current bill before Senate and House, the Freedom to Vote Act, is well intended yet in at least one provision it actually makes elections less secure, less likely to provide public confidence. This is a change from previous bills H.R.1 and all version of S.1.

This new provision would prevent observers from within eight feet of ballots until after certification. That would make it impossible for observers to actually see that votes were counted and totaled accurately in audits and recounts (recanvasses in CT).

From page 298:

‘‘(1) I N GENERAL.—A person who is serving as a poll observer with respect to an election for Federal office may not come within 8 feet of
‘‘(A) a voter or ballot at a polling location
during any period of voting (including any period of early voting) in such election; or
‘‘(B) a ballot at any time during which the processing, scanning, tabulating, canvassing, or certifying voting results is occurring.

Like other provisions it is well intended but has unintended consequences. Observers need to be closer to observe ballots being adjudicated, votes determined and counted. Without public verifiability, justified confidence in elections is not possible.  We have covered the details of this before in our editorial series: Common Sense, specifically Justified Confidence and Public Transparency and Verifiability.

January 6 was practice. They are much better positioned to subvert the next election.

Bart Gellman article in the Atlantic: Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun
January 6 was practice. Donald Trump’s GOP is much better positioned to subvert the next election 

Its a long article, yet, unfortunately the most chilling projection yet of what is awaiting in 2024 and perhaps in 2022. I would emphasize Trump less that Gellman.  It can be as bad if he is not the candidate. Its not just the presidency at stake, its all levels of democracy and our democracy itself.

Bart Gellman article in the Atlantic: Trump’s Next Coup Has Already Begun
January 6 was practice. Donald Trump’s GOP is much better positioned to subvert the next election <read>

Its a long article, yet, unfortunately the most chilling projection yet of what is awaiting in 2024 and perhaps in 2022. I would emphasize Trump less that Gellman. It can be as bad if he is not the candidate. Its not just the presidency at stake, its all levels of democracy and our democracy itself.

In 2022 much of the same playbook could be used to change a handful or less House districts, or a couple of Senate seats and suddenly the House and Senate change to the control of the Republican Party, thwarting the President’s agenda and further harming voting rights and integrity.  Fine if the Republicans win one or both houses legitimately, by not illegitimately.  In 2024 even more is at stake, even more erosion can be anticipated if nothing changes the current trajectory.

Its unlikely to happen in Connecticut, with our current voting laws and little chance for them to change, yet even in 2021 we have seen several baseless claims by losers (and a couple legitimate claims which will likely be appropriately investigated).

Read and understand. Consider what you might do to support appropriate laws, serve in polling places, and perhaps open some minds.

 

 

Connecticut RLA Working Group, 2nd Meeting

On Wednesday, the CT RLA (Risk Limiting Audit) Working Group held its second meeting and firmed up plans for the 2021 prototype audits. Below is a video of the meeting and an email I sent the Chair Gabe Rosenberg and the chief scientist from UConn, Alex Russell.

Watch here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzakPMlj0LigvokDrkgiDVw/live

I have watched both meetings of the RLA Working Group and have several Suggestions and comments…

On Wednesday, the CT RLA (Risk Limiting Audit) Working Group held its second meeting and firmed up plans for the 2021 prototype audits. Below is a video of the meeting and an email I sent the Chair Gabe Rosenburg and the chief scientist from UConn, Alex Russell.

Watch here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzakPMlj0LigvokDrkgiDVw/live

****************************************************

Gabe, Alex,

I have watched both meetings of the RLA Working Group and have several Suggestions and comments.

As you may or may not know, I have been involved in post-election audits and audit laws in CT and nationally since 2007. Since 2009 I have been involved in what become known as RLAs. I was a catalyst in causing a meeting in early 2010 in D.C. and in securing invitations to three officials from CT who attended. After that meeting, they took the lead in initiating what became the UConn Audit Station. I was involved in the planning of the Colorado RLAs and planning, executing, and reporting on the Rhode Island RLA pilot. I was an observer at the Fairfax City RLA demonstration, which I used as a basis to suggest improvements for the RI pilot.

  • I complement all involved on the successful development of the UConn Audit Station. And the significant improvements in it in the last couple of years. It can save CT hundreds of thousands in an RLA.  Note: That all the experts recommended a Ballot Comparison Audit for RI, yet due to the extreme cost of ES&S central count scanners, the RI Board of Elections chose Batch Comparison Audits.
  • QR codes: The use of QR codes on ballots (mainly on printed ballot marking device ballots) has raised huge integrity and transparency concerns. The concern is that they are not human readable/verifiable for auditing. I would suggest a)the QR code labels also included printed sequence numbers etc. of what is in the QR code and b)the QR code be readable to show that same information by a standard smart phone QR code reader. I would also suggest you assume that QR codes do not need to be scanned in order, to facilitate multiple people/groups putting on stickers and that some stickers will be broken, misapplied, or otherwise discarded in the process.
  • Are you aware of the recent guidance for the U.S. DOJ that all election materials should be preserved for 22 months for Federal Elections. So things like CVRs, images, paper and computer records (Arlo records) must also be preserved?  Since this is not a Federal election the letter does not apply, yet it would be a good practice to do the same for 6 months for other elections as well.
    https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1417796/download
  • I would have liked if ABs were included in the prototypes. Also note that there has been no recognition of the need to account for originally hand counted and EDR ballots in an actual RLA.
  • Two Transparency Requests: I hope you will consider giving at least a week’s notice of the date, time and place of any RLA prototypes, such that there is an opportunity for observers to attend. I would also suggest, like RI, live video stream(s) of the RLAs showing the whole space, so that the pubic can in that way observe the whole process and additional streams showing the details of ballot comparisons, ballot security, and data entry into Arlo (or other software).
  • Two Small Comments on the Slides: a) National experts have consistently said that there are three RLA methods, yet they include Batch Comparison Audits and view Full Recounts as a possible final round of all the other types of RLAs. b) I believe it is incorrect to state that “All previous pilots have considered single precincts”. As the person planning and leading the RI Batch Comparison Audit, I can state that it included multiple precincts. I also checked with my colleagues more involved in Colorado and they confirmed that Colorado pilots always included multiple precincts.
  • Going forward, a) I believe that the biggest challenge in conducting an RLA for CT is the town-by-town structure of elections. I would be a strong advocate for the idea of a small number of sites across the state for scanning with the Audit Station, with trained officials responsible for the Audit Station and guiding local officials in the rescanning process. b) Instead of QR stickers, perhaps a device or scanner could be acquired/developed to print QR codes on an appropriate place on ballots – stickering the whole state would be quite an expensive, time-consuming process.

Finally, while I am a supporter of RLAs, they are not a panacea, In my opinion, in many instances they have been oversold as easy and they are all that is necessary to prove that elections are OK. I am not aware of any state laws for RLAs that I or most would  consider good, even as far as they go.  Often they leave it to an official to choose contests to audit, leaving the suspicion that they made political decisions, where also they often choose uninteresting high margin contests to make the RLA easier. Similarly they often require the auditing of one or two contests, which says nothing about other contests. Doing Ballot Comparison RLAs has the advantage that with marginally more work all large contests can be audited (in CT, statewide and Congressional Races are most suited to RLAs).

RLAs are not well suited to municipal contests in CT, as your statistical table shows. RLAs do not provide much insight into errors. So, there is a place for the batch audits now done in CT. There is also a need for eligibility audits – are the checkoffs accurate? Are those checked actually qualified to vote? Are absentee ballots signed correctly, signatures accurately adjudicated? Etc. Especially in CT there is a need for audits of ballot security, which according to the experts are a prerequisite to trusted, useful RLAs.

Perhaps you would share this letter with the entire membership of the Working Group.

Thanks,

Luther Weeks
Executive Director, CTVotersCount and Connecticut Citizen Election Audit