Much of what we hear from candidates is proposed cheerleading and leadership from the bully pulpit: the bills they would propose to the legislature, the leadership they would provide to improve the business climate, encourage voting, and voting integrity in Connecticut. However, there are items that the Secretary of the State can do on their own initiative to improve business registration, public access to information, and the election process.
Much of what we hear from candidates is proposed cheerleading and leadership from the bully pulpit: the bills they would propose to the legislature, the leadership they would provide to improve the business climate, encourage voting, and voting integrity in Connecticut. Don’t get me wrong these are useful and legitimate roles for the Secretary of the State. However, there are items that the Secretary of the State can do on their own initiative to improve business registration, public access to information, and the election process.
When I talk to candidates for Secretary of the State, one of my main themes is what they could do on their own authority as Secretary of the State to improve election integrity and public confidence.
Here is my initial list of items, which may be expanded:
- Provide detailed, accurate, downloadable, election information and notices on the Secretary of the State’s web site, while increasing the integrity of the post-election audit
- Create jobs, efficiency and election integrity in Connecticut by changing the way memory cards are programmed and tested
- Improve documentation and training for election officials, in substance and format
- Provide written directives and responses to inquiries from election officials
We recognize that everything costs money, however, most of these items are relatively modest items that appear to be within the authority of the Secretary of the State.
Further Details
Provide detailed, accurate, downloadable, election information and notices on the Secretary of the State’s web site
In a PEW study the Connecticut site ranked 48th out of 50 states. We could debate if we should be higher in the rankings, or instead work to emulate and surpass the top ranked states.
The process of accumulating voting results in Connecticut is an error-prone three step process of addition and transcription, from polling place, to town hall, to the Secretary of the State’s Office, and to the web. Citizens have identified errors large and moderate – errors of a magnitude which could change election results, the initiation of recanvasses, or ballot access. See <here> <here>
Without reliable, publicly posted results, post-election audits cannot be accomplished which inspire confidence and provide integrity. A trusted audit requires selecting districts for audit against previously posted results. Since we audit against optical scanner tapes, and the tape results are not posted, then we fail to meet that requirement.
What can be done?
- Post copies of the original documents: All district and central count absented ballot Moderator’s’ Reports and copies of scanner tapes should be faxed to the Secretary of the State’s Office and posted on the SOTS web site. (We know this is easily possible since the SOTS web site has recently included images of all local ballots, and is capable of the quick addition of press releases)
- Post detailed and summary data: The SOTS could use temporary employees or outsourcing to input and double check the input of all that data, then post it to the web site in human and downloadable formats.
- Side benefit: A free public audit: As a byproduct the public, candidates, and parties could check and audit the data at no cost to the state. To do that today would involve visiting town halls across the state and performing all the calculations done today by hand – efficient auditing of selected districts is not possible because detailed data is not currently posted.
- Consider using the Overseas Vote Foundation facility for empowering military and overseas voters, now in use by seven states. This is an example of what could be done to empower all voters. (Added 4/4/2010)
- Improve post-election audit integrity: Stop accepting reports showing wild discrepancies as extremely accurate and make all audit investigations public and transparent. (added 7/31/2010) <Extremely Accurate> <Audit Reports>
Another area of irritation and loss of integrity in the post-election audits is that while the Secretary of the State’s Office is able to post ballots for every municipality, they are not provided with a reliable list of polling districts in those municipalities. By requiring the faxing of district Moderator’s Reports and posting them, this uncertainty would be eliminated.
Another problem is public notification of audit dates, times and locations. By procedure (unfortunately not by law), registrars are required to inform the Secretary of the States’s Office three days in advance of the local audits. If these dates were posted by the SOTS Office within 24 hours of receipt, then the public, candidates, and parties would have much better access to actually observing audits.
Beyond audits, having centralized voting district locations and assisting voters in finding their polling place would help the public and partially relieve that burden from towns.
Create jobs, efficiency and election integrity in Connecticut by changing the way memory cards are programmed and tested
Currently, before each election, memory cards are programmed in Massachusetts by our distributor, LHS Associates. The cards are shipped to local election officials for pre-election testing. There are two problems:
- We have no effective supervision over the process. One of the risks is insider fraud or intimidation of those who program and ship memory cards.
- The process is not perfect, and the memory cards are physically unreliable. Extra effort is required when bad cards are discovered by the Registrars and new cards need to be ordered and shipped. See <UConn Report.>
What can be done?
- Perform the programming in Connecticut: In other states (outside of New England) large counties program their own cards and often perform programming at a fee for small counties. We have paid for two machines which we can use to program the cards. They could be used by state employees or outsource the programming within Connecticut.
- Independently test the cards nearby the programming: UConn has developed, at taxpayer expense, a program to eliminate many causes of error in the cards and easily detect bad cards with “junk” data. Currently this program is underutilitzed in no non-random testing of cards selected by local officials after pre-election testing and after the election. We can exploit this program to 100% pre-test the cards, enhancing integrity and reducing wasted effort by local officials when they discover “junk” cards.
- Side Benefit: Jobs: It might be small, yet every job moved back to Connecticut would be a benefit to the state. Like large counties in other states, we might provide the service to other states in New England – we could compete with LHS for business and with the added advantage of the UConn testing program. Perhaps we could expand beyond New England to service other states.
We also note a large cadre of very part-time election officials, many of whom served as lever mechanics and later as vendor trained optical scan technicians. We expect that several of these same individuals could quickly train to meet the seasonal demand for programming and testing, and appreciate the opportunity for work and public service. It would not take many.
Improve documentation and training for election officials, in substance and format
The current Secretary of the State and her staff have worked to improve documentation and training. This work should continue and be taken to a new level.
What can be done?
- Update and improve the value of manuals: The Moderator Manual, the Absentee Ballot Moderator, the Recanvass Manual and the Post-Election Audit Procedures were modified after the commitment to optical scanners. They need to be updated and expanded based on experience. They need to be rewritten and edited by professional technical writers to make them more effective as training and reference documents. For instance,
- The Absentee Ballot Moderator’s Manual still calls for multiple counting throughout the day, but only one count is necessary with optical scanners.
- The Post-Election Audit procedures should provide more details in several areas: Counting incomplete bubbles, counting write-in votes, exactly what levels of differences should call for recounting and investigation, and help with accurate and efficient counting methods.
- The Recanvass Manual should also cover details of counting incomplete bubbles, counting for voter’s intent, voter identifiable ballots, and the role of designated observers.
- There may be value in following the examples of other jurisdictions in creating observer manuals for post-election audits and recanvasses.
- Improve and expand certification: The Secretary has begin efforts for Registrar Certification and Training to complement the current Moderator Certification and Training. The Registrars job is much more involved than that of a Moderator, yet Registrars have no formal training and certification program (And currently there is no requiremen for Registrars to be certified Moderators or to attend training. Moderators are supposed to be certified, yet that is not enforced – these are issues for the Legislature and an example of where the Secretary of the State could be an effective cheer leader)
Provide written directives and responses to inquiries from election officials
One responsibility of the Secretary of the State’s Office is to advise election officials on proper procedures according to law, regulations, procedures, and directives. We have heard registrars complain that the advice given depends on who one talks to, and on what day. We have no way of determining if that is true or how prevalent the problem is. The uncertainty and over-reliance on verbal communication should be eliminated.
We hear the same from committee political treasurers. In fact it is the subject of a proposed law before the Legislature. The law would require the State Elections Enforcement Commission to follow-up with a written version of any verbal advice within ten days. <H.B. 5470> However, it is difficult to write law that distinguishes from a simple inquiry from one that provides a critical distinction that the caller must rely on to avoid error and avoid potential fine or jail time.
What can be done?
- All directives should be in writing and publicly available. Like any laws, regulations, and procedures there is usually some ambiguity, unanticipated situations, new regulations can take years to be approved, and problems which must be overcome. The Secretary of the State Office from time to time must issue directives to cover these situations. Such directives should be in writing and posted publicly.
- All substantial advice and rulings should be recorded in writing. The current Secretary of the State’s Office keeps track of all citizen inquires. The Office should keep track of all official inquires, and summarize any significant election advice and rulings for future reference.
- Economies of Scale: Perhaps the state would be best served by a common system, that tracked similar advice for the Secretary of the State’s Office and Elections Enforcement. Perhaps we should use the same or similar laws, and the same system for all agencies that have a similar requirement. The Environmental Protection Agency comes to mind. What do other agencies do today? What do other states do? We have only one Freedom Of Information law for all agencies. Perhaps we need a uniform law for agency directives, rulings, and advice? There will always be a need to consider economies of scale vs. excess bureaucracy – but the third option is to search for the ways that increase economy of scale, increase democracy, while also streamlining bureaucracy. Once again, the Secretary cannot change the law alone, but could cooperate with other agencies to produce efficiency and provide leadership in going beyond requirements of the law.
This list would be a good start. Perhaps we will update and add to it over time.
