Legislature2012 | CTVotersCount.org

Election Day Registration: Be prepared for lines and dissapointment

Insanity:
1) doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
– Albert Einstein
2) doing something different from what has been done over and over and expecting the same result. – The Land of [un]Steady Habits

Maybe not this year, but sometime soon, in a high interest election, we will have a huge turn-out for Election Day Registration, and many voters and candidates disappointed at 8:00pm.

Insanity:
1) doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
– Albert Einstein
2) doing something different from what has been done over and over and expecting the same result. – The Land of [un]Steady Habits

On Election Day, next Tuesday, Connecticut inaugurates Election Day Registration (EDR). Election Day Registration has be successfully employed for years in several states, with increased turnout and without significant fraud. Unfortunately, we are trying our own version, expecting the same results:

Other states have done EDR in polling places, essentially accepting the voters word that they have not voted elsewhere, under stiff penalties for fraud after the fact. Presumably, very few would risk penalties for voting illegally – the challenge is to get voters to vote in the first place.
Connecticut requires them to go to a central location and for officials to actually register them on the spot. Plus if they are already registered in Connecticut, in the name of fraud protection, we call the other town and wait ten minutes for a call-back if they have previously voted. It is a time consuming process, even if there are sufficient lines to handle peak volume and the state’s central voter registration system performs under such stress.

We seem to be of two or three minds:

We expect the same results as other states: A 5%-8% increase in turnout.
Without the experience of other states: That turn-out increase comes with the work of 20% to 30% election day registrations. So we expect and prepare for a maximum of around 5% registrations on election day.
We judge that very few will register on election day. We look at past experience with the Presidential Ballot, where unregistered voters could go to Town Hall and only vote for President, it a state where it usually does not make much difference. (Ignoring the huge turn-out at the last minute in 2012 in New Haven and Hartford, and the huge lines we saw then, in a considerably less time intensive process)

CTVotersCount Opinions/Warnings:

We have been against this law since we first read the versoin proposed to the legislature in 2010. We are in favor of Election Day Registration based on success and safety in other states – but not this way.

It will likely start slow this year, with few potential voters aware of it. For the most part, this is a low interest, low turnout election. In the long run we predict, our results and work will likely ramp up to about half the levels of other states that make it convenient – on average across the state.
Yet some year there will be a huge turnout, based on last minute voter excitement, a close race, perhaps coupled with party/candidate activity on Election Day. – especially in large towns with huge voter turn-over and many unregistered citizens. There is even that potential this year in New Haven and Bridgeport.
We will know better after this year, but a single line can handle at most 10 to 15 voters in an hour. What if 1000 voters show up in some town between 7:00 and 7:30, that would require 67 lines!!! – Assuming there were no citizens in line already at 7:00.

There is one more issue in this unproven, almost unmanageable scheme:

The Secretary of the States Office has procedures that, unlike polling places, those in line at 8:00pm cannot register.
Worse, officials have control over who and how many register: Anyone not registered by 8:00pm, according to procedures issued by the Secretary of the State cannot register. Officials at each local EDR location can effect who that last person is – officials running the election determine in advance the number of lines, which can limit the total number of people who can register – favoring the party, expected to have fewer election day hopefuls.
Worse, likely a civil rights issue in statewide elections, our understanding is that the law will not be applied equally across the State. Some officials believe that people in line at 8:00 should be allowed to register and vote. Since the Secretary’s procedures are not enforceable they are presumably free to interpret the law that way.

Maybe not this year, but sometime soon, in a high interest election, we will have a huge turn-out for Election Day Registration, and many voters and candidates disappointed at 8:00pm.

Big Bird and Charlie Rose know what the CT Legislature does not!

See Charlie Rose interview Dr. Barbara Simons, co-auther of Broken Ballots. <view >

Big Bird and Charlie Rose now know that Internet voting, email voting, Virgina elections, and inadequately audited elections – do not merit our trust.

See Charlie Rose interview Dr. Barbara Simons, co-auther of Broken Ballots. <view >

Big Bird and Charlie Rose now know that Internet voting, email voting, Virgina elections, and inadequately audited elections – do not merit our trust.

Unfortunately the Connecticut Legislature completely trusts the internet with our votes.

In 2011 the Legislature was about to pass online voting despite the science, ignoring our testimony. Fortunately, they stopped, but only after the Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill convinced them to only require a report on online voting, resulting in a symposium with nationally know computer scientists and a former sports reporter and team mascot Secretary of State from West Virginia.

In 2012, we could have told them that email voting over the internet was even more dangerous, but there were not public hearings – they stuffed email voting into a campaign finance reform bill. Passed by both Houses, we warned the Governor about email voting and the unconstitutional provisions of the bill, claiming voters could waive our right to a secret vote. The Governor vetoed the bill, partially because of email voting.

Perhaps our Legislature will understand this clip from Charlie Rose,

Governor vetoes bill with email/fax voting “rat”

Such rats risk bills being occasionally vetoed, yet more often fuel criticism of the the Legislature and serve to make citizens disgusted with Government in general.

I do not support any mechanism of voting that would require an individual to waive his or her constitutional rights in order to cast a timely, secret ballot, even if such waiver is voluntary…allowing an individual to email or fax an absentee ballot has not been proven to be secure.
– Dannel P. Malloy, Governor

UPDATED

CTVotersCount readers know that we have a long history of opposing Internet voting of any type, and a recent history of opposing H.B. 5556 in Connecticut, because it contains a provision for email/fax voting, added in late to an “emergency certified bill”. In Connecticut such provisions are know as “rats”.

Today Governor Malloy vetoed that bill with an extensive message. One paragraph, echoing our recent letter published in the Hartford Courant, articulately summarized the good reasons to avoid such voting <read veto message>

Upon close examination, however, I find that some portions of this bill likely violate the United States Constitution…I cannot support the bill before me given its many legal and practical problems…

HB 5556 also contains a provision allowing deployed service members to return an absentee ballot by email or fax if the service member waives his or her constitutional right to a secret ballot. I agree with Secretary of the State Denise Merrill that this provision raises a number of serious concerns. First, as a matter of policy, I do not support any mechanism of voting that would require an individual to waive his or her constitutional rights in order to cast a timely, secret ballot, even if such waiver is voluntary. Second, as the Secretary of the State has pointed out, allowing an individual to email or fax an absentee ballot has not been proven to be secure. In 2011, the United States Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, issued a report on remote electronic voting. The report concluded that remote electronic voting is fraught with problems associated with software bugs and potential attacks through malicious software, difficulties with voter authentication, and lack of protocol for ballot accountability. None of these issues are addressed in this bill. To be clear, I am not opposed to the use of technology to make the voting process easier and more accessible to our citizens. However, I believe that these legitimate problems have to be carefully studied and considered before enacting such a provision.

Contrary to the Governor’s message, my reading of the bill indicates it would have provided for email/fax voting for the military AND overseas voters, including voters on vacation abroad. See sections 23, 24, and 25.
http://cga.ct.gov/2012/ACT/PA/2012PA-00117-R00HB-05556-PA.htm

Others have differing opinions on the rest of the bill, and claim that the Governer would not negotiate. However, we do know that the email voting provision likely was never offered for negotiation with the governor, never had a public hearing, and was opposed by the Secretary of the State prior to placement in the bill. Still it was put in the bill shortly before the final votes by the full House and Senate, deserving of the title of “rat”.
http://www.ctmirror.org/story/16655/malloy-vetoes-campaign-finance-bill

Such rats risk bills being vetoed on occasion, yet more often rats and emergency certifications fuel criticism of the the Legislature and serve to make citizens disgusted with the Legislature, legislators, and Government in general.

Secretary of the State Merrill issued the following statement:

HB 5556 was a good faith effort to respond strongly to court decisions like Citizens United that have allowed an avalanche of private special interest money into our election system. Connecticut is a national leader in enacting clean election laws, and there can be no turning back. This bill would have strengthened our existing law in a number of ways, and I strongly support the concept. However, it is unfortunate that such important legislation included a section enacting voting by fax or email. As election technology, email or fax voting is not secure and could expose the electronically submitted ballots to hacking or other interference, calling into question the integrity of votes from our brave military serving overseas. These are citizens who put their lives on the line every day to protect our right to vote, and we should do everything we can to make sure their votes are actually counted with some assurance of accuracy and integrity. The technology that would make electronically submitted ballots secure has not yet been developed, and I am grateful that Governor Malloy concurs with this view. Therefore, I urge our Governor and General Assembly to work out a compromise on improvements to our Citizens Election Program and our response to Citizens United, and to do it soon. Our voters need to know if money or the public good drives our political system.

************** Update 06/23/2012

We have not taken a position on the campaign finance provisions of H.B. 5556. We are in favor of public funding of elections and the limitation of corporate money in elections. Today the Courant published an op-ed by the Executive Director of the CT ACLU articulating their position against the details within the bill: Veto Thwarts Bad Campaign Finance Bill <read>. We have referenced the arguments of those in favor of the bill in several of our posts. To the ACLU we would add that the threat is real in Connecticut: Two years ago protests by the Catholic Church against a bill before the Legislature resulted in threats to the lives of two legislators – we can easily see threats and intimidation directed at funders of the groups listed in the op-ed.

************** Update 06/25/2012

Governor and Legislature would have different goals in crafting a compromise bill: Malloy, legislature make last stab at campaign reform <read>

Letter: Email, Fax Voting Provisions Mar Campaign Bill

Many citizens and legislators do not understand that email voting is a risky form of Internet voting and that fax voting presents equivalent risks. If the system worked as it should, there would have been public hearings and a chance to educate our senators and representatives.

Our letter opposing H.B. 5556 was published in the print edition of the Hartford Courant today, available online by searching letters <read>

Email, Fax Voting Provisions Mar Campaign Bill

Luther Weeks, Glastonbury
The writer is executive director of CTVotersCount.
on 2012-06-03

There are additional reasons Gov. Dannel P. Malloy should veto the campaign finance bill [June 3, editorial, “Veto This Bill”].

Without public hearings, provisions were added mandating email and fax voting for military and overseas voters. Each of our 169 town clerks must implement email voting in time for the August primary, with no standards for security, no provisions for informing intended voters, and no funding.

There have never been public hearings on email or fax voting in Connecticut. Last year, the legislature held hearings on online voting resulting in a symposium at CCSU broadcast by CT-N. Three leading computer scientists confirmed for legislators that Internet voting is unsafe. Email and fax voting are less secure than online voting. We all have the experience of lost emails and fake emails from our bank. Large corporations and the U.S. military have been unable to protect networks from outsider and insider attacks.

The bill asks military and overseas voters to sign away their right to a secret vote, recognizing that the system will at minimum expose their votes to officials in town hall. Yet, the purpose of a secret vote, guaranteed by the Connecticut Constitution, is each voter’s right that no other voter’s vote can be bought or coerced. One voter cannot sign away the rights of every other voter.

That is about all that could be fit into the 200 word limit. Many citizens and legislators do not understand that email voting is a risky form of Internet voting and that fax voting presents equivalent risks. They do not understand the technical and administrative challenges of implementing the law in 169 small, medium, and large towns, some of which have asked for exemptions from maintaining web sites.

If the system worked as it should, there would have been public hearings and a chance to educate our senators and representatives.

Newspapers join CTVotersCount, ACLU, and CBIA in objections to H.B. 5556

CTVotersCount opposes H.B. 5556 and has urged Governor Malloy to veto the bill because it contains a provision for risky, unconstitutional email and fax voting.

CTVotersCount also opposes H.B. 5556 and has urged Governor Malloy to veto the bill because it contains a provision for risky, unconstitutional email and fax voting.

The underdefined provisions for military and overseas voters were added to an otherwise unrelated bill at the last minute by Senator Gayle Slossberg. Email and fax voting were never the subject of public hearings this year or ever by the General Assembly.

Not only are those voting mechanisms risky, we believe they are unconstitutional. They require individual voters to sign away their right to a secret vote, since email and fax votes cannot be made secret. However, we believe the secret vote guaranteed by the Connecticut Constitution is every voter’s right that no individual voter’s vote can be associated with the individual, such that their vote could be coerced or intimidated. So an individual voter cannot sign away that right for all other voters.

The newspaper, ACLU, and CBIA have other concerns and constitutional objections. Here is an article from the Hartford Courant discussing those concerns: Newspapers Ask Malloy To Veto Bill <read>

Under the interpretation of the bill by the Connecticut Daily Newspapers Association, newspapers that sponsor a political debate would be required to calculate “the value of the debate — i.e., set-up, airtime, advertising, etc. — coupled with the broadcasting of such debate” as an “independent expenditure” that would need to be reported publicly under the recently approved campaign finance bill.

In addition, the newspaper association board would need to approve those expenses, and the board “would then be required to disclose the votes of individual board members and ‘pertinent information’ that took place during the discussion of the expenditure,” according to a letter to Malloy by Chris Van DeHoef, the association’s executive director.

“If CDNA should partner with a local television station to host and televise a debate and CDNA placed ads in its members’ papers, would those ads constitute an independent expenditure?” Van DeHoef asked in his letter. “Would the airtime be an independent expenditure?”

NIST: Internet voting not yet feasible. (And neither are email and fax voting)

Use of fax poses the fewest challenges, however fax offers limited protection for voter privacy. While the threats to telephone, e-mail, and web can be mitigated through the use of procedural and technical security controls, they are still more serious and challenging to overcome.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in response to an inquiry, summarized the risks of Internet voting <read>

Internet voting is not yet feasible, researchers from the National Institute of Standards and Technology have concluded. ”Malware on voters’ personal computers poses a serious threat that could compromise the secrecy or integrity of voters’ ballots,” said Belinda Collins, senior advisor for voting standards within NIST’s information technology laboratory, in an May 18 statement. ”And, the United States currently lacks an infrastructure for secure electronic voter authentication,” she added. Collins released the statement in response to an inquiry from Common Cause, a Washington, D.C. nonprofit active in campaign finance and election reform.

“This statement should serve as a blunt warning that we just aren’t ready yet and proves that we can’t trust the empty promises of ‘secure Internet voting’ from the for-profit vendors,” said Susannah Goodman, head of Common Cause’s Voting Integrity Project. ”We urge election officials and state and federal lawmakers to heed NIST’s warning and step back, support further research and STOP online voting programs until they can be made secure,” Goodman added…

The statement is based on two NIST reports:

This 2011 report http://www.nist.gov/itl/vote/upload/NISTIR-7770-feb2011-2.pdf Strongly articulates the many risks of Internet voting and the slight mitigations available. It references an earlier report that explains the risks of all types of electronic transmission of voted ballots. Perhaps email voting and fax voting were sufficiently covered in the early report that it was not necessary to spell that out in more detail than the earlier report:

In December 2008, NIST released NISTIR 7551, A Threat Analysis on UOCAVA Voting Systems [3], which documents the threats to UOCAVA voting systems using electronic technologies for all aspects of overseas and military voting. NISTIR 7551 considered the use of postal mail, telephone, fax, electronic mail, and web servers to facilitate transmission of voter registration materials, blank ballots, and cast ballots. It documented threats and potential high-level mitigating security controls associated with each of these methods. The report concluded that threats to the electronic transmission of voter registration materials and blank ballots can be mitigated with the use of procedures and widely deployed security technologies. However, the threats associated with electronic transmission, notably Internet-based transmission, of cast ballots are more serious and challenging to overcome and the report suggested that emerging trends and developments in that area should continue to be studied and monitored.

Here is that earlier report: http://www.nist.gov/itl/vote/upload/uocava-threatanalysis-final.pdf

Voted ballot return: Sending completed ballots from UOCAVA voters to local election officials can be expedited through the use of the electronic transmission options. However, their use can present significant challenges to the integrity of the election. Use of fax poses the fewest challenges, however fax offers limited protection for voter privacy. While the threats to telephone, e-mail, and web can be mitigated through the use of procedural and technical security controls, they are still more serious and challenging to overcome.

Sadly the CT Legislature passed a bill this year the included email and fax voting, without hearings. The Governor is considering vetoing that bill which may be unconstitutional and risks democracy in the name of soldiers who are dedicated to preserving that democracy.

Courant does So-So fact check of its latest editorial

The nation’s oldest continuously downsizing newspaper did a So-So job of fact checking its latest editorial, reviewing the legislative session. Here is our analysis, which actually is the Courant’s Report Card: Accuracy: C-; History: F; Prognosis: F

The nation’s oldest continuously downsizing newspaper did a So-So job of fact checking its latest editorial, reviewing the legislative session: This Legislature: The Good, The Bad And The So-So <read>

Here’s The Courant’s report card…

The bill also allows tests, in a handful of schools, of a rigorous teacher evaluation system and lets schools get inept teachers out of classrooms faster, among other things…

Election Day Registration: One in three eligible voters in Connecticut does not even bother to register to vote, so the bill allowing Election Day voter registration is good. Now, how about online registration? Voting by mail? Weekend voting? Making it less of a chore to do one’s civic duty, as many other states have done?

Here is our analysis, which actually is the Courant’s Report Card:

Accuracy: C- The Election Day Registration bill, H.B. 5024, covered two items, the other one was Online Registration, taking up approximately the first half of the bill. Trusting this paper’s editorials could lead you astray, even on basic facts.

History: F The Courant said Government accountability would be a priority this year, yet never mentioned or used that standard in evaluating the year in the Legislature. Accountability also applies to our media.

Prognosis: F This editorial is comes just before the latest round of downsizing takes effect.

EDR passes House and Senate

We opposed this unique form of Election Day Registration. We hope we are wrong. We hope that Connecticut’s 339 registrars implement the bill effectively, fairly, safely, and uniformly. That no one is lulled into complacency by low EDR voting in 2013 for the municipal elections and that chaos does not await us in a future high interest election in 2014 or 2016.

Yesterday, H.B. 5034 passed the Senate and is now heading to the Governor’s desk for his signature. The bill provides for Election Day Registration (EDR) and online voter registration. Since Governor Malloy proposed the bill and praised its passing, it will become law. Secretary of State Merrill also praised its passing.

CTVotersCount readers know that we are in favor of EDR and online registration. However, we did not support this bill because the EDR as proposed risks the rights of EDR voters, all voters, and is unlikely to achieve the same success as EDR in other states.<see our testimony for details>

According to a PEW report, other states have achieved 3% to 7% increased turnout with an increase in registration with 10% to 20% of voters registering by EDR (presumably once EDR is available many voters who would have registered earlier take advantages of the opportunity, as well as those who would not have registered earlier).

Despite such evidence from other states, Secretary Merrill attributes their higher than average turnout of 10% solely to EDR. We doubt our less convenient method will match their increases of 3% to 7%: <video>, press release:

Denise Merrill
Secretary of the State
Connecticut

For Immediate Release: For more information:
May 5, 2012 Av Harris: (860) 509-6255
Cell: (860) 463-5939
-Press Release-
Merrill: Final Passage of Election Day Registration, Online Voter Registration Moves Connecticut Elections into the 21st Century
Secretary of The State Looks forward to Enacting HB 5024 that Would Modernize Elections, Lead to Higher Voter Participation

Hartford: Secretary of the State Denise Merrill today lauded the final legislative passage of House Bill No. 5024 “An Act Concerning Voting Rights” – a measure proposed by Governor Dannel P. Malloy that once enacted will allow eligible Connecticut residents to register to vote and cast ballots on Election Day, and will also enable eligible Connecticut residents with a driver’s license to register to vote from any computer or mobile device with an internet connection. The Connecticut State Senate endorsed the bill today by a vote of 19-16. The measure was approved by the House of Representatives on April 30, 2012 by a vote of 83-59.

“This common sense yet long overdue reform is something we have tried to implement in Connecticut for years, and now we have made history by moving elections in our state into the 21st Century,” said Secretary Merrill, Connecticut’s chief elections official. “This will make the right to vote much easier to exercise for the eligible voters of Connecticut and lead to increased voter participation. We have the technology to allow eligible voters to register online from any computer or mobile device, and we have the security in place to allow those late deciding, busy and mobile voters to register and cast ballots on Election Day. This will also make our voter lists more accurate. I commend both Representative Russ Morin and Senator Gayle Slossberg, the chairs of the Government Administration and Elections Committee, and leadership in both the Senate and House for seeing this bill through to passage this year. I also commend the leadership shown by Governor Malloy in proposing this legislation and I look forward to watching him sign it into law.”

Connecticut becomes the 11th state to enact Election Day Registration. Some states such as Maine, Minnesota and Wisconsin have had Election Day Registration on the books since the 1970s. Studies have shown that voter turnout in states with Election Day Registration is on average 10% higher than national voter turnout figures. Once signed into law, Election Day Registration would only be available for November General Elections, not for primaries, starting in 2013. The new law will also create an interface between the existing Centralized Voter Registration System and the database housed at the state Department of Motor Vehicles that would verify the identity of a voter wishing to register online prior to approval by the local Registrar of Voters.

Av Harris
Director of Communications
Connecticut Secretary of the State Denise Merrill
(860) 509-6255 ofc
(860) 463-5939 cell

We hope we are wrong. We hope that Connecticut’s 339 registrars implement the bill effectively, fairly, safely, and uniformly. That no one is lulled into complacency by low EDR voting in 2013 for the municipal elections and that chaos does not await us in a future high interest election in 2014 or 2016.

EDR – Proponents cannot have it both ways

Proponents tout gains in turnout, but then estimate very few will use Election Day Registration (EDR) when it comes to claiming it won’t cost municipalities much and would not result in lines etc.

John Hartwell interviewed Secretary of the State Denise Merill on Stream on Conscience

John Hartwell interviewed Secretary of the State Denise Merill on Stream on Conscience <view>

Although I am a supporter of EDR in theory. I am against the current Election Day Registration (EDR) bill as it portends chaos in a popular election and denies EDR voters the rights to privacy booths, ballot clerks, their votes being counted publicly by optical scanner, and does not provide a right to register if they are in line at 8:00 pm.

States that have successfully implemented EDR have seen turnout increase 3% to 7% with 10% to 20% EDR registrants to get the increased turnout. (They use a different model than CT, so it is hard to predict if our model will have the same results in turnout and voter appreciation)

Poponents tout those gains in turnout, but then estimate very few will use EDR when it comes to claiming it won’t cost municipalities much and would not result in lines etc. (Underestimating the result here would increase the odds of chaos if other states’ turnout estimates are the correct ones)

In this interview the Secretary claims early on (8:25 in the video) that states recently implementing EDR have a 10% increase in turnout, but then later finds it hard to accept John’s example of 10% of voters in Westport using EDR (21:20) as “assuming a very large number”. Contrary to the Secretary’s contention that “it is all done by computer”, registering someone who is registered elsewhere in Connecticut involves calling a registrars office, that office calling a polling place, and then responding back to make sure the voter had not previously voted.

It is correct that testing in a low turnout election (2013) would be a good time to roll out the system. However, that can also generate a false sense of confidence, with a huge turnout and huge EDR turnout in a later more popular election (2014 or 2016).

Listen to the entire interview. Many other items of interest are discussed. The Secretary is worried about gangs at polls intimidating voters in the past and potential for chaos at the polls this fall (16:30).

More details on our concerns with the current EDR bill <here>

A Tale Of Two Laws

This year we noticed quite a difference between hearings for bills that Legislators really understand and others covering subjects with which they are not intimately familiar. When it comes to ethics and elections they really pay detailed attention to bills that effect them, such as disclosure of conflicts of interest and campaign finance rules — they write detailed laws with everything spelled out. The disparity in attention to detail shows up in the extent and insight in their questions during hearings, as well as in the text of proposed laws. When it comes to laws they seem to not understand so well, they do not, and perhaps cannot be expected to, pay attention to the details.

Compare the changes to and details in the campaign finance law, H.B. 5228, 117 pages, 3700 lines, with the single bill H.B. 5024, with 15 pages, 415 lines. 314 of those lines dedicated to a major change providing for Election Day Registration and 101 lines to the moderate change providing for Online Registration.

The Legislature is correct to specify in law the many critical details associated with campaign spending. As we have said before, Election Day Registration deserves a lot more of those critical details spelled out to protect the rights of all voters (and candidates).

We see a similar bent in the Connecticut Constitution having 31 amendments, with, by our count, 7 addressing the composition or redistricting of the Legislature. Typically those amendments are much longer and more detailed than the others.