Category: Election2010

CTNewsJunkie story <read>

With a couple of close calls near the deadline, it seems that all the statewide office candidates that wanted to participate in the program have met fundraising criteria.  Several candidates are not planning on participating either because they do not believe in the program or want to be able to raise and spend higher amounts.  Others have claimed the qualifying bar may be a little too high for the statewide offices.  So far, it seems that every statewide candidate who put in the effort managed to qualify.  Others may have dropped out because they felt they were not likely to qualify or felt the work involved might not be worth it if they were to loose the election in the end.

New Haven Independent: Merrill At Public $$ Threshold; Garcia “Halfway” <read>

“I thought I should come down and reach out,” Merrill said during an interview at Bru Cafe.

Garcia is running to become the first Latino ever elected to statewide office in Connecticut. His campaign promises to dramatically increase the number of registered voters, including the pitch that his background would help him reach out to the state’s fast-growing Latino community. He has vowed to raise the percentage of people voting in presidential years from 80 to 90 percent, and in even-numbered off-years from 60 to 80 percent. He has endorsed the idea of same-day registration and of allowing people to cast votes over a period of weeks, rather than just on Election Day.

In the interview, Merrill, too, endorsed early-voting. She too vowed to boost registration numbers. While she’s open to same-day registration, she said she wants to make sure Connecticut upgrades its computerized voting rolls first so officials can handle it…

She also emphasized that boosting Latino registration numbers is part of a larger imperative: boosting the broader notion of citizenship.

“It’s much more complicated than just going out to get people to vote,” she said. “We need an entire dedication to citizen engagement. That’s why I’m running for secretary of the state.”

She said she wants to combat the “prevalent” notion that “government doesn’t matter.” She spoke of boosting high-school civics education and proposing a mandatory statewide standardized civics test similar to those administered for math and English. She previously sponsored a bill that made high school civics classes mandatory.

The candidates had more to say on these issues in the recently released Courant Editorial Board interviews, so did we.

…at a campaign debate earlier two weeks ago in Hartford. The sponsors invited Merrill and Garcia. They invite the Republican candidate for secretary of the state, Jerry Farrell. They didn’t invited the Green Party candidate, Mike DeRosa even though he has a spot on the November ballot. DeRose showed up. He asked to participate. The debate organizers said no. They said the debate was just for candidates running in primaries—however, Farrell doesn’t have a primary.

Merrill agreed that DeRosa should have been included. “I think it should have been one way or the other,” she said—either candidates involved in a primary, or all candidates running.

So why did she participate anyway?

“Well, it wasn’t my debate. They set it up. I was in a primary. I wasn’t going to be not part of the discussion because they didn’t set it up properly.”

Garcia said he had “never heard of” candidate DeRosa before the debate.

See: <Our coverage of the Hartford forum>

Gerry Garcia <listen>

Denise Merrill <listen>

The Courant brought up several  items of consolidation and downsizing.  “Reginal voting centers without voting precincts in every town”; consolidating the SEEC and the SOTS office, possibly eliminating the SEEC; and having more than one registrar in each municipality:

• There are compelling reasons why we could save money by rationalizing election management just like the Probate Courts, done well we could also improve voter service and increase confidence in integrity – we would support evaluating various alternatives to the New England system of town by town election management.  But the Courant would go farther and eliminate local polling places with “Reginal voting centers without voting precincts in every town” – that would be a very bad idea making it more difficult and confusing, not easier for voters, especially those with mobility difficulties, those without cars, and those without access to public transit. The states who use regional voting centers, use them for early voting, preserving local polling places for election day – that provides more voter service at increased cost and with additional integrity and enfranchisement considerations. (This issue deserves much more than one paragraph, perhaps we will tackle that more extensively in the future at CTVotersCount)
• The Courant is also a proponent of a single registrar in each town. We do not understand their faith in a single partisan elected official to manage elections, presumably registrars vary in integrity just like Connecticut Mayors and Governors.  As we have said before, it is not written in stone tablets that Hartford registrars must be full time and each have a deputy. There could be three part time registrars when a third is elected.  I also note a strong bias against the “third”-party registrar in Hartford, when she actually was the “second”-party selection of the voters of Hartford.
• The Courant and the candidates are considering consolidating some or all of the functions of the State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) into the Secretary of the State’s (SOTS) Office.  We see no reason why some functions like registering candidate committees and administering the Citizens Election Program could not be managed by either office. Yet we are not so sure there are significant savings possible as these functions require significant resources and unique detailed expertise, no matter where they are located. We do not support including the enforcement function within the SOTS office, we need independent enforcement.  We would go further and transfer the responsibility for auditing elections to an office independent of the Secretary of the State (perhaps the SEEC) – as recommended by the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition, and every good government group we know, including Common Cause, The League Of Women Voters, Verified Voting, and The Brennan Center for Justice.

Candidate Garcia is in favor of large scale mail voting, which we oppose:

• CTVotersCount readers know that we are opposed to large scale mail balloting, including unlimited absentee voting. A significant number voters are disenfranchised by ABs when envelopes are not filled out correctly etc. Also voters lose the capability of having the scanner reject overvotes so that they can vote again. This risk disproportionately impacts new voters, less educated, and non-English speaking voters.There is a risk of fraud and intimidation in voting.  The trail from mail box to post-office, to contract trucks, to the town hall mail room, to the clerk’s office. They know who you are, where you live, your ethnicity – ballots can be “lost” that are likely to vote a certain way. In the last election 12,500 of voters in CA were disenfranchised because the post office delivered ballots too late. Oregon may check the signatures, however, the last we heard very few were ever rejected as not matching.  It could be the reverse, with many signatures rejected as  not matching which would also be suspect, especially if many were rejected in some areas and few in others – if many were rejected in disadvantaged areas, some would charge official fraud, others retail/candidate fraud, and others racism.

Candidate Merrill is in favor of early voting like she says they have  in Florida, “in every public library”, we are skeptical:

• To vote in every public library for seven days before an election and maintain integrity would be hugely expensive. Assuming each of our 169 towns has at least one public library (or would need at least one polling place) and would need about half the staffing(*) of an average election day polling place.  This would be 169 towns * 7 days * 1/2 costs = 600 regular polling place costs.  This would be in the range of doubling the current election day costs for municipal elections/primaries and increasing the costs of Federal elections/primaries by 70%.
• Our understanding is that early voting in Florida started in 2002 and is not voting “in every library” , it is voting in a few voting centers in each county(**).  An increase in costs, but not as significant as it could be if voting were in every library. A moderate number of voter centers  might be worth it in Connecticut, if we were willing to pay for it. It would seem to require a prerequisite change away from local control/management of elections.

We are in favor of election day registration, based on long successful experience in other states, even without online access in each polling place. However, Candidate Merrill makes a good case for fixing the voter registration system as a prerequisite.

We applaud the Courant for conducting and making these interviews public.  We note a strong emphasis on the elections role of the Secretary of the State – too often we have seen an emphasis by candidates on the business registration aspects of the job.  The strong concerns of the Editorial Board seem to be saving money in election administration and increasing turnout. We note however, a shortage of questions and concern on voting integrity, ballot access(***),  serving those with disabilities, and the education of election officials.

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

(*) We assume a polling place in each library would have with less volume and less hours.  To maintain integrity and voter service, would still require, in our opinion,  at least two assistant registrars from opposing parties, a ballot clerk, a machine tender and a relief worker – and this assumes we can use these officials to also perform the duties of checkers and trainer/greeter, while one of the officials serves as moderator and is a certified moderator – this is also approximate considering the need for extra security each night, staffing in the registrars office for the normal stream of questions from the polling place, and the need for a machine to serve those with disabilities.

(**)  Research online indicates that Broward County had 17 early voting centers in November 2008, with most but not all in libraries, and by our count, 39 library branches.

American Political Association Report, excerpts:

In response to the chaos of the 2000 general election, Florida adopted legislation aimed at ridding the election system of its problems.In response to the chaos of the 2000 general election, Florida adopted legislation aimed at ridding the election system of its problems…Beginning in 2002, county elections supervisors could choose to offer early voting, but it was not uniformly required or implemented across the state until 2004…One oft-cited problem was the number of sites available to voters. Generally, too few machines led to long lines and extended waits. More specifically, however, there was heavy criticism from many interest groups and minority communities about the lack of early voting sites in areas where black, Latino, and low-income residents could vote. When William E. Scheu replaced John Stafford as Duval County election supervisor, he quickly added sites at four regional libraries.

(***) By ballot access, we mean changes like: Non-partisan ballots used in almost all states except Connecticut and New York;  Review of third party requirements for ballot access and participation in the Citizens Election Program;

On Thursday June 17th, Denise Merrill visited the Glastonbury DTC,
Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:
This is the Q&A.  I asked her to respond to the same question I asked the other candidates in Hartford on Tuesday (she had to leave early):

Last night, three of the four candidates for Secretary of the State met in a forum at the Hartford Public Library sponsored by the Hartford Vota Coalition.  Christine Stuart of CTNewsJunkie was also there and made a report <read>  Like Stewart, I was disappointed to meet Mike DeRosa outside, before the event and learn that he was excluded.  The sponsors say they are “a group of organizations that have come together with the common goal of increasing voter turnout in the City of Hartford.”  The place to start would be full participation at their own events.

There were about twenty-five citizens present. The candidates all made the case for the importance of the Secretary of the State’s office. If citizens understood that, the room would have been overflowing. The question and answer period went by quickly with a variety of extended, intelligent questions with extended answers.  I asked one question. Given the interest in the audience, the Q&A could have continued for several hours. I will focus on the election integrity aspects of the forum.

Denise Merrill, endorsed Democratic candidate led off.  She stated that she is “Passionate about Civic Education” in schools. As Secretary of the State she would modernize the office, saying that voting should be easy and simple. She expressed concern with the additional money going into elections based on the Citizens United case and expressed strong support for the Citizens Election Program.

Gerry Garcia, primary Democratic candidate was next. He emphasize his goal of giving voice to those who “have no seat at the table”. He joked about having two Jerry’s in the race.  (Nobody noted that we also have a Farrill and a Merrill). Garcia expressed strong support for early voting listing several states that have various forms of early voting and especially Oregon which has had all-mail elections for several years. Like Merrill he spoke of increasing participation by increased registration and motivation to participate in the process, saying “Our kids vote every week on American Idol”.

Jerry Farrell, endorsed Republican candidate was the final speaker. He said there were three key issues for the Secretary of the State: Business Registration, Voting, and Records Management. He said when looking at changes in voting he views them through two filters:  Avoiding fraud and avoiding unfunded mandates that towns cannot afford.  He also expressed support for no-excuse absentee voting, criticizing the current system as forcing voters to lie.

In general, the candidates all agreed on the need to improve automation, the convenience of business and voter access to the state, increase participation in democracy, and increase voter turnout.

Q&A
I will cover the highlights from my point of view. Each candidate present responded to each question. The moderator did an excellent job of allowing the audience and candidates plenty of time to speak, yet occasionally moving the candidates to conclude and giving them a second chance when they did not respond to the question.

The first question was about cracking down on unregistered businesses. Farrell pointed out many consumer complains he receives about such businesses  and has dealt with as Consumer Protection commissioner.  He also pointed out that each unregistered business hurts those businesses that play by the rules.

Unfortunately, Denise Merrill had to leave after responding to the first question.

I asked the second question. “How far would you go? Where would you draw the line? In supporting military and expat voting. Minnesota has solved the problem with conventional means, while other states are proposing voting via Internet, fax, and email.  All of these methods are vulnerable to hacking.  West Virginia just concluded a ‘successful’ test of Internet voting at approximately $1100 per vote.  Most implementations of email and fix voting involve an election official copying votes onto a ballot, hardly secret. Imagine a town council member with a child in Iraq, or the council member in the reserves deployed in Iraq?  The vote would not be secret.  At a minimum the person who did the copying would know.  Where would you draw the line, what would you spend?”

Garcia would draw the line at insisting on a paper ballot. The protections it provides are too important to sacrifice. Farrell was not as definitive, he said he hoped that the issues could be worked out so that fax or email could be accomplished safely.

A question was asked on the candidates’ support for Instant Runoff Voting.  Farrell said it was not his first priority for elections. His first priorities would be fixing the current system then he would consider other areas of changing the election system. Garcia said that IRV was not proven, indicating that he is not convinced at this point.

To another question on how they would make registration easier, especially for graduating high school seniors, Farrell said he would tour the state speaking at as many high schools as possible. Garcia pointed out that although registration is important, we must recognize that only one-third of registered voters voted in the Nov 2009 election – so registering is only part of increasing civic engagement.

The final question was on the advisability of expanding absentee voting with the proven problems of fraud.  Farrell responded that while we have had problems, all of those that have been identified have been prosecuted.

Given the time constraints and the alternatives to learning about the candidates, it was a very useful event.  Much more informative than the single candidate speaking event.  More relevant than the stiffer highly public televised “debates” with canned questions from the mainstream media. There was a lively discussion of a wide range of relevant issues.  We would like to see more events like this, with more time for questions, more of the public present and engaged – with all the candidates welcome.

CTNewsJunkie has the story:  Harris Bows Out of Secretary of the State Primary <read>

“This was a difficult decision for me, but ultimately the right one,” Harris said in a press release. “It is critical that civic engagement in our state continues to thrive and that we have a renewed commitment to growing businesses and creating jobs. Democrats are well-positioned to make sure both of these goals are reached, and I look forward to helping the party in any way that I can.”…

A newly wed with a 15 year old son and a new house, his position on row C of the ballot, the limited number of days between the convention and the primary, and the $300,000 fundraising limit under the public campaign finance system were just a few of the reasons Harris gave for reconsidering a primary.  If you take the family, the logistics of a campaign, and his commercial litigation practice, along with his economic development business, into consideration, “this just wasn’t my time,” Harris said.

He said it was a “twist of fate,” that “G” comes before “H” in the alphabet placing him third on the ballot.

Updated: May 25, 2010:  In a press release, Tim Reynolds drops our of Comptroller primary.

Updated: May 25, 2010: CTMirror: Source says Simmons told staff he is ending campaign <read>

Looks like there may not be a Republican Senate primary, but not yet certain:

A Republican source says Rob Simmons told his staff Monday he will end his campaign for U.S. Senate at a press conference today in New London…

Schiff said he was considering a petition drive to qualify for the primary ballot, but he may be dissuaded by a head-to-head fight with McMahon and her resources. He said during the convention he preferred a three-way primary.

Updated: May 24, 2010:  Meriden Record Journal:  Farrell will not face primary challenge <read>

Corey Brinson announced Monday that he will not challenge Farrell in a primary…Farrell said Monday that he was pleased to have Brinson’s support and looking forward to campaigning with him. Not having to face off against Brinson in a primary, he said, would be a benefit in preparing for the general election.

Updated: as of 9:oo AM May 23, 2010

It looks like a hot day on August 10th with several heated, potentially close statewide primary races:

So far, it looks like Democratic primaries for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of the State, and Comptroller.  Republican primaries for U.S. Senator, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and maybe Secretary of the State.  Several may be three-way races:  Republican Senator, Republican Governor, and Democratic Secretary of the State.

Secretary of the State

The Democratic Convention chose Denise Merrill.  Jonathan Harris and Gerry Garcia both received over the 15% of votes to qualify for a primary. Garcia announced from the podium that he will primary.  Harris will also primary.

The Republican Convention chose Jerry Farrell.  Corey Brinson also received over 15%.

Article and SOTS videos at CTNewsJunkie. <read/view>

According to the Courant, Brinson will decide on pursuing a primary by Monday:

Farrell, 42, of Wallingford, has served as commissioner since 2006. He said his goals were to foster job growth, particularly in small businesses, and drive down state spending.

“I’m going to walk in there and clean it up,” he said. “We can’t let government … just creep along the way it is.”…

Brinson, who garnered nearly 40 percent of the votes, said he was unsure if he would wage a primary, but would make an announcement one way or the other on Monday.

“Regardless of what happened today, the voters are looking for change in their party,” he said. “The state is 25 percent people of color. The convention is not.”

The Democratic SOTS convention from the New Haven Register:

Denise Merrill became the party’s candidate for secretary of the state after Gerry Garcia, a former New Haven alderman, unexpectedly withdrew his name for consideration of the party’s nomination after the first vote, but said he’ll still forge ahead with a primary.

Garcia garnered 455 votes, or 24.5 percent, while State Sen. Jonathan Harris received 552, or 30.4 percent, and State Rep. Denise Merrill, took 808, or 44.5 percent.

All qualified for a primary, but since no candidate collected more than 50 percent, a second vote was required. Garcia announced to the crowd his decision to wage a primary, but asked that delegates supporting him Saturday give their votes to Harris.

Merrill was supported by 966 delegates in a second vote, while Harris saw 826 votes. Merrill said she’s ready to fight for businesses and residents in an assertive speech to the crowd before thanking Bysiewicz, whom Merrill said “revolutionized, modernized, and transformed” the position.

We will provide updates as we read them.

???????According to MattW at MyLeftNutmeg: <read>

Now official <read>

We received the following press release from Denise Merill’s office <read>

MAJORITY LEADER MERRILL SEEKS LEGISLATION
BANNING BOUNTIES FOR REGISTERING NEW VOTERS

State House Majority Leader Denise Merrill (D-Mansfield, Chaplin) said Monday that she would immediately seek legislation banning bounties or other payments in exchange for the registration of new voters.

“I am very troubled by the practice of using money to influence or persuade a person to register to vote before an election,” Merrill said. “Any practice like this is fraught with the potential for voter fraud. I plan to seek immediately, by way of an amendment to a bill, legislation that would ban this practice.”

The issue arose over the weekend when it was disclosed in a newspaper report that the U.S. Senate campaign of Republican Linda McMahon was paying $5 for each Republican registered during a voter registration drive in Merrill’s district at the University of Connecticut.

“I was shocked that this was being done in my own district,” Merrill said. “The fact that someone might take advantage of a student in need of money is appalling.”

Although the practice may not be illegal, concern has been raised by the U.S. Justice Department, which has contacted state officials who are also looking into McMahon’s campaign voter registration drive.

We tend to agree that it should be illegal.  Ms. Merrill  and her campaign for Secretary of the State is a good example of someone that might be unfairly hurt by such a practice.  In addition to possibly procuring votes for Ms. McMahon the effect would also preclude an unsuspecting student from being able to vote in the Democratic Primary if that would have become their choice as the campaign season progresses.  Sounds as bad or worse than some of the things that ACORN was only accused of doing.

********

Update: Senate candidate Linda McMahon has withdrawn the $5.00 bounty for Republican registrations.  Courant Story: McMahon Decides Not To Offer Students Bonuses; <read>

After being criticized for offering to pay University of Connecticut students extra money for every Republican registered at a voter registration drive this week, U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon has decided not to offer the bonuses.

“We have dropped the bonus component of our voter registration drive,” said McMahon’s spokesman, Shawn McCoy, today. “The bonuses are in full compliance with the law, but Linda weighed the concerns that were raised and asked that we drop that component of the plan prior to the launch.”

Students who help with the drive will still receive $10 an hour, but will not be paid the $5 bonus, McCoy said, noting that this is not the first voter registration drive McMahon has worked on. It, however, is the first time the Republican candidate was going to offer bonuses, he said.

***********

A Similar Story Of Two Investigations of Registrations Going Farther: CA Voters Tricked Into Registering As Republicans With Pot Petition: <read>

Orange County authorities are launching an investigation into possible voter registration fraud after a local newspaper reported over a hundred cases of voters being tricked into registering as Republicans by petitioners who asked them to sign petitions for, among other causes, legalizing pot…

In a lengthy investigation published earlier this month, the paper pointed to an $8 “bounty” offered by the California Republican Party for each new registration as a cause for the problems. It identified multiple petitioners who work for vendors “with ties to the California Republican Party.” Back in 2006, a similar scandal led to the convictions of several petitioners.