This morning Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill selected 34 district for audit with the help of students at Wethersfield High School:
 |
 |
This morning Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill selected 34 district for audit with the help of students at Wethersfield High School:
|
|
List of selected districts: <press release>
From Buzzfeed’s Cyber Security Correspondent, Kevin Collier: A Year After Trump’s Victory, Our Elections Aren’t Much More Secure
But the focus on how Facebook and Twitter were used to sow division in the US electorate has diverted attention from one of the weakest spots in the system: … a simple cyberattack can be effective against weak infrastructure and unprepared IT workers. Whether that can be fixed by 2018 or even 2020 is an open question…
“We’re not doing very well,” Alex Halderman, a renowned election security expert, told BuzzFeed News. “Most of the problems that existed in 2016 are as bad or worse now, and in fact unless there is some action at a national policy level, I don’t expect things will change very much before the 2018 election.”
From Buzzfeed’s Cyber Security Correspondent, Kevin Collier: A Year After Trump’s Victory, Our Elections Aren’t Much More Secure <read>
The halfway point between the election of President Donald Trump and the 2018 midterms has come and gone, and it still isn’t fully clear what Russian hackers did to America’s state and county voter registration systems. Or what has been done to make sure a future hacking effort won’t succeed.
US officials, obsessed for now with evidence that Russia’s intelligence services exploited social media to sway US voters, have taken solace in the idea that the integrity of the country’s voting is protected by the system’s acknowledged clunkiness. With its decentralized assortment of different machines, procedures, and contractors, who could possibly hack into all those many systems to change vote totals?
But the focus on how Facebook and Twitter were used to sow division in the US electorate has diverted attention from one of the weakest spots in the system: the gap between those locally operated voting systems that are well-protected by sophisticated technology teams and those that are less prepared. Russia knows those gaps exist and that a simple cyberattack can be effective against weak infrastructure and unprepared IT workers. Whether that can be fixed by 2018 or even 2020 is an open question.
Most states’ elections officials still don’t have the security clearances necessary to have a thorough discussion with federal officials about what’s known about Russian, or others’, efforts to hack into their systems.
Seven states still use all-electronic voting systems whose results cannot be verified because there is no paper trail.
And hundreds of US counties rely on outside contractors to maintain their registration records and update the software on voting machines. Some of those contractors are small operations with few employees and minimal computer security skills.
Here we caution that it is not just Russia to be concerned with. Those same vulnerabilities are open to other foreign actors, foreign and U.S. hackers, along with elements of the the U.S. Government. Beyond that open to official and contractor insiders. Not being connected to the Internet does not preclude attack from any of these actors, especially insiders.
Seven states still use all-electronic voting systems whose results cannot be verified because there is no paper trail.
And hundreds of US counties rely on outside contractors to maintain their registration records and update the software on voting machines. Some of those contractors are small operations with few employees and minimal computer security skills.
Many local officials are reluctant to seek federal help, worried about ceding authority to outside agencies.
“We’re not doing very well,” Alex Halderman, a renowned election security expert, told BuzzFeed News. “Most of the problems that existed in 2016 are as bad or worse now, and in fact unless there is some action at a national policy level, I don’t expect things will change very much before the 2018 election.”…
But in the aftermath of last year’s vote, it has become clear that the sheer complexity of the system is no reassurance that it can’t be exploited by a determined hostile power. Halderman, the election security expert, says that just because it didn’t happen last time — or in the voting completed Tuesday — doesn’t mean it won’t.
“It’s only a matter of time, if we don’t have coordinated national action, until a major US election is disrupted, or even its outcome changed, by a foreign nation-state in a cyberattack,” [former FBI director James Comey] said.
To this day, DHS points to the fact that it’s never found evidence that vote tallies were changed
We add that DHS, as far as we know has not looked for such evidence anywhere, let alone everywhere.
As we have said before. Protecting databases and votes requires Prevention, Detection, and Recovery.
Paper ballots, properly secured, are the first requirement for detection and recovery of votes. Strong pre-election voter database backup and audits along with paper voter checkin lists are part, just a part, of recovery from corrupted or electronic voter lists, or election day power failure, equipment failure, and cyber attack.
The Purpose of the Citizen Audit is to increase integrity and confidence in elections, for the benefit of the voters of Connecticut. We provide independent audits, audit observations, and reports focusing on the integrity of elections and election administration. <More about the Citizen Audit>
Voters
Want
To Know:
You can Help Provide Answers!
Volunteer one day as a Post-Election Audit Observer.
The Connecticut Citizen Election Audit coordinates volunteers, like you, to observe the state’s post-election audit of voting machines. Non-partisan volunteers go “behind the scenes” with a checklist of best practices and interview questions. They gather information which is compiled into reports submitted to the public, election officials, and the Legislature.
Why Volunteer?
For good Government, to preserve our right to a free and accurate vote!
See the Results of Our Efforts In the Audit Reports Below:
The Purpose of the Citizen Audit is to increase integrity and confidence in elections, for the benefit of the voters of Connecticut. We provide independent audits, audit observations, and reports focusing on the integrity of elections and election administration. <More about the Citizen Audit>
Voters
Want
To Know:
You can Help Provide Answers!
Volunteer one day as a Post-Election Audit Observer.
The Connecticut Citizen Election Audit coordinates volunteers, like you, to observe the state’s post-election audit of voting machines. Non-partisan volunteers go “behind the scenes” with a checklist of best practices and interview questions. They gather information which is compiled into reports submitted to the public, election officials, and the Legislature.
Why Volunteer?
For good Government, to preserve our right to a free and accurate vote!
See the Results of Our Efforts In the Audit Reports Below:
The failure to remove Mr. Seabury’s name, either by having the ballots reprinted with the name of the replacement candidate, having stickers with the replacement candidate’s name placed on the ballots or, in the event no replacement has been nominated, “(C)caus[ing] blank stickers to be so affixed if the vacancy is not filled,” is in direct violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-460 (adding emphasis).
Our Opinion: We understand that diseased candidate Seabury was not elected, likely leaving the Democrats with no reason to go to court. Yet, the Registrars deserve an SEEC complaint and large fines for blatantly failing to follow the law.
From the Hat City Blog: Danbury Democrats threaten legal action over Seabury controversy <read>
Dear Mrs. Giegler, Mrs. Gallo and Ms. Doran: I am saddened by the recent passing of City Councilman Gregg Seabury. Gregg was a valued public servant and educator. Gregg’s passing is a loss for his family and the City of Danbury as a whole. My respect for Gregg makes me regret the need to draft this correspondence. Unfortunately, I believe it is necessary to make certain facts regarding Mr. Seabury’s presence on the Election Day ballot and the effect of his passing absolutely clear.
First, the law is well established that Conn. Gen. Stat § 9-460 governs what is to occur when a candidate passes less than twenty-four days but more than twenty-four hours before the opening of the polls on Election Day. Specifically, the statute permits the party who nominated the candidate to nominate a replacement candidate. Critically the statute does not allow, as is the law in some states, the candidate to remain on the ballot.
f passing occurred on a Saturday is of no legal moment and any claim to the contrary is simply not premised upon the law.Mr. Seabury’s passing, less than twenty-four days but more than twenty-four hours before the opening of the polls, created a vacant nomination. See, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-460 which clearly holds that in such circumstances the candidate may be replaced or his name removed from the ballot. The statute does not permit the name to remain on the ballot as I understand is intended.
The failure to remove Mr. Seabury’s name, either by having the ballots reprinted with the name of the replacement candidate, having stickers with the replacement candidate’s name placed on the ballots or, in the event no replacement has been nominated, “(C)caus[ing] blank stickers to be so affixed if the vacancy is not filled,” is in direct violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-460 (adding emphasis).
Secretary of the State Denise Merrill seems to agree:
“This is an emotional time and Secretary Merrill and the staff of her office have deep sympathy for the friends and family of Councilman Seabury.
Early yesterday afternoon, lawyers from the Secretary of the State’s office informed Danbury’s local election officials of the law regarding replacing a deceased candidate on the ballot. Connecticut law in this case is clear, and there is no basis in law to allow Gregg Seabury’s name to remain on the ballot, or to treat this situation as if there is a vacancy in office.
It is of great concern to read news reports this morning that Danbury officials have apparently decided to ignore the clear requirements of Connecticut law. It is the position of this office that all local election officials should follow the law as written.”
– Gabe Rosenberg, Communications Director for Connecticut Secretary of the State Denise Merrill
Our Opinion: We understand that diseased candidate Seabury was not elected, likely leaving the Democrats with no reason to go to court. Yet, the Registrars deserve an SEEC complaint and large fines for blatantly failing to follow the law.
“Yesterday, along with representatives from the state’s information technology and public safety departments, I met with regional officials from the United States Department of Homeland Security to discuss how we can work together to ensure that Connecticut elections are safe from outside interference or manipulation. We had a productive meeting and I look forward to working together in the months and years to come to protect our elections, the bedrock of our democracy.” – Denise Merrill, Connecticut Secretary of the State
We applaud this step in the right direction. Last year as leader of the National Association of Secretaries of State, Merrill opposed the designation of elections as critical infrastructure, leading in expressing the concern for a Federal take-over of elections. We were critical of that stand then and remain so.
In our opinion this is just a step. There are several aspects to election security/integrity that should be addressed,. This step may assist in those that are under direct control of the of the the State, yet less so those under local control.
Secretary Merrill met with Homeland Security on Thursday:
Merrill Statement on Meeting with DHS Officials Regarding Election Cybersecurity
|
We applaud this step in the right direction. Last year as leader of the National Association of Secretaries of State, Merrill opposed the designation of elections as critical infrastructure, leading in expressing the concern for a Federal take-over of elections. We were critical of that stand then and remain so.
In our opinion this is just a step. There are several aspects to election security/integrity that should be addressed,. This step may assist in those that are under direct control of the of the the State, yet less so those under local control. It’s not an issue of a State take-over of local elections, but the impossibility of every town in the State doing what even the NSA has failed at – protecting their most sensitive systems from attack. Yet, like the NSA, the State is capable of doing ever better.
Cybersecurity from “outside interference or manipulation” is insufficient. We must prevent insider attacks. We must be able to recover from “interference and manipulation”, since complete prevention is not possible.. As we have said before, database and election integrity depends on Prevention, Detection, and Recovery.
“Justice delayed is justice denied.” What could be worse? Perhaps “Justice delayed and fines transferred to the victims.”
In 2014 the Registrars in Hartford failed to provide check-off lists to polling places in time for voting to begin at 6:00am. From the stories of the public and explanations from officials at the time, it seems pretty clear it was not a simple error or comedy of errors.
Editorial
The pollbook delay went beyond incompetence. These conclusions and fines should not take close to three years. The well-compensated registrars should be paying the fines not the City.
“Justice delayed is justice denied.” What could be worse? Perhaps “Justice delayed and fines transferred to the victims.”
In 2014 the Registrars in Hartford failed to provide check-off lists to polling places in time for voting to begin at 6:00am. From the stories of the public and explanations from officials at the time, it seems pretty clear it was not a simple error or comedy of errors. <read>
From the Courant: City Fined $9,600 For Election Day Problems – Investigation Critical Of Registrars Of Voters <read>
The state Elections Enforcement Commission has fined the city of Hartford $9,600 for the 2014 Election Day snafus that left many people, including the governor, unable to vote when polls opened.The state’s investigation found that the three Hartford registrars of voters didn’t finish preparing the official voter registry lists until a half hour before polls opened and, because of that, 14 polling places opened late or without the proper voter lists needed to check off names…Even after polls closed, the registrars had issues. The investigation found that there was a 2,035-vote discrepancy in the number of ballots cast for governor versus the number of people check ed off as having voted. There also was a 93-vote discrepancy in absentee ballots.After a second count, the absentee ballot disparity was corrected, but there was still a 1,542 difference in votes for governor that was never resolved.The investigation is critical of all three Hartford Registrars—Republican Sheila Hall, Democrat Olga Vazquez and Working Families Party Urania Petit—but was particularly harsh toward Vazquez, who was tasked with getting the voter rolls ready.“Ms. Vazquez’s wantonly poor decision-making reflected either a too casual approach to her work, or a serious deficiency in her ability to do the job,” the report concluded.Vazquez was in charge of getting the voter registry lists to the moderators at each of the 24 polling places. But the books weren’t sent to the printer until only a few days before the election, and the registrars didn’t cross absentee voters off the lists until only two days before the election. They didn’tcomplete that task until 5:30 a.m. on Election Day—a half hour before polls were to open.The investigation made it clear the delay was primarily Vazquez’s fault.“Starting with a misreading of the election calendar concerning when she needed to print the list—an inexcusable mistake by a registrar with her experience—she appeared to miss opportunity after opportunity to avoid the slowly unfolding calamity that rolled into the public eye on the morning of Election Day,” the report concluded.
A vigilant Registrar in New Haven pursues suspicions. From the New Haven Independent Judge Hopeful Submits Forged Signatures <read>
Americo Carchia Wednesday said he’s considering whether to end his campaign for probate judge and vowed to cooperate with any potential criminal investigations after learning that he had submitted petitions with forged signatures to qualify for the Sept. 12 Democratic primary ballot.
A vigilant Registrar in New Haven pursues suspicions. From the New Haven Independent Judge Hopeful Submits Forged Signatures <read>
Americo Carchia Wednesday said he’s considering whether to end his campaign for probate judge and vowed to cooperate with any potential criminal investigations after learning that he had submitted petitions with forged signatures to qualify for the Sept. 12 Democratic primary ballot.
Carchia turned in petitions on Aug. 9 with the names and alleged signatures of over 2,000 registered New Haven Democratic voters putatively supporting having his name appear on the Sept. 12 primary ballot against party-endorsed candidate Clifton Graves Jr. He needed 1,852 certified signatures to qualify; the Registrar of Voters office found 1,982 signatures to be valid — based on the names and addresses and birth dates listed matching those of registered Democrats. So Carchia made the ballot
One of those signatures belonged to Andrew Weiss, a Yale student listed as living in Yale’s Arnold Hall. Weiss told the Independent by email Tuesday that he never signed a petition. In fact, he wasn’t even in New Haven during the two-week period at the end of July and beginning of August when the petitions were collected. “I was in Japan,” he wrote…
Democratic Registrar of Voters Shannel Evans Wednesday confirmed that she had filed the complaint with the SEEC after speaking with voters listed on the petitions who said they, too, had never signed. (SEEC spokesman Joshua Foley said the agency can’t confirm or deny receipt of such a complaint until the full commission meets and votes on whether to launch an investigation.)
Carchia was shaken as he received photocopies of all his petitions from the City Clerk’s office before visiting the Registrar of Voters Office to learn more about the approval process.
“I can’t be more numb right now. Look at these!” he exclaimed.
“I’m seething inside.”
He said someone who gives him political advice — he said he couldn’t remember who — had steered him to Yellow Dog Strategies. He said he trusted that the company knew what it was doing. “It was difficult” to find enough help to gather so many signatures in just a two-week window, Carchia said. He said he had no knowledge of corners being cut by the consultants.
This is why signatures are important and useful. Its not that every forgery can be caught, yet when there are a lot of fraudulent polling place sign-ins, absentee ballots, or petitions those redundant signatures can raise suspicions or in other cases confirm suspicions.
Reminds us of 2004 in Ohio as recounted in the book Witness to a Crime, reviewed here. One of several incidents in the book was multiple districts with sheets of added polling place voters signed in with similar signatures – signatures of an election supervisor in headquarters, not at any one of the polling places.
Unlike Ohio and many other states, Connecticut does not require voters to sign the check off lists at polling uplaces and does not require absentee vote counters to meaningfully check signatures. As we too often say here, look for not evil, see not evil, find no evil.
Also outsourcing your campaign is not all its cracked up to be.
Today marks the 10th anniversary of CTVotesCount. We had been planning the organization and the blog for a couple of months – we launched after the end of a summer vacation. We wondered if there would be any news during August?. Coincidentally, the Top To Bottom Review commissioned by the Secretary of the State of California was just coming out – that was quite a start – the Top To Bottom Review remains an important landmark in voting integrity.
Our goals remain:
Today marks the 10th anniversary of CTVotesCount. We had been planning the organization and the blog for a couple of months – we launched after the end of a summer vacation. We wondered if there would be any news during August?. Coincidentally, the Top To Bottom Review commissioned by the Secretary of the State of California was just coming out – that was quite a start – the Top To Bottom Review remains an important landmark in voting integrity. We also highlighted a UConn Report and a story from Verified Voting.
Our goals remain:
As we start our 10th year, our commitment continues:
CTVotersCount.org is dedicated to fairness and confidence in democracy, that election results must accurately reflect the intentions of the voters.
We want every citizen’s vote counted!
To be counted accurately!
And to be counted only once!
Voting as we know it, depends on two important keys that are often difficult for the public, media, and sometimes even experts to understand.
Voting rolls and check-in lists need to be available to every citizen, young and old, so that the public can be assured that only registered voters voted, that they voted in the correct primary, that the number of ballots match the number of voters checked in, and that those checked in actually did vote. Otherwise there is no basis for trust in democracy.
Public voting rolls provide the only means for individuals and news organizations to independently investigate voting fraud; they provide officials with the credible proof that fraud is limited; and they help the public to trust in decisions by the State Elections Enforcement Commission.
Voting as we know it, depends on two important keys that are often difficult for the public, media, and sometimes even experts to understand. One is the need for anonymous voting, aka the “secret ballot”. The other is the need for voting rolls and the record of who voted to be public. We addressed that second one in a letter published in the Hartford Courant today:
Do Not Hide Voter Information
I was surprised to learn that Dan Barrett, Connecticut ACLU legal director, was against “any old person on the street [being] able to access [voter rolls].”
Voting rolls and check-in lists need to be available to every citizen, young and old, so that the public can be assured that only registered voters voted, that they voted in the correct primary, that the number of ballots match the number of voters checked in, and that those checked in actually did vote. Otherwise there is no basis for trust in democracy.
Public voting rolls provide the only means for individuals and news organizations to independently investigate voting fraud; they provide officials with the credible proof that fraud is limited; and they help the public to trust in decisions by the State Elections Enforcement Commission.
Not so long ago, UConn students used that data to expose the extent to which the rolls included deceased voters. That same data was used by officials to demonstrate, in a way that could be verified, that very few of those entries were associated with actual fraud. More recently, those public rolls were used to uncover and confirm that a state representative had voted for several years and had been elected based on an illegal residence. Currently, there is a criminal investigation underway in Stamford based on absentee voters checked off who did not actually vote.
What prompted this letter was an article with the quote along with quotes from several officials proposing to restrict access to voter rolls Lawmakers Seek More Voter Privacy <read>
There is much to criticize in the Trump Commission. Yet there is no excuse for officials to unilaterally disobey the law. There are reasons for voting lists and voting history to be public documents. Perhaps we can providing a teaching moment.
Editor’s Note: We sent the following letter to the Hartford Courant in response to their recent editorial. They along with apparently the rest of the media opposed the Trump Commission, in our opinion, for the wrong reasons. There is much to criticize in the Trump Commission. Yet there is no excuse for officials to unilaterally disobey the law. There are reasons for voting lists and voting history to be public documents. Perhaps we can providing a teaching moment.
To the Editor,
I share the concerns for the ill-conceived Presidential Advisory Commission on Elections shared by Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, officials nationwide, and your editorial on 7/6/2017. Yet in a rush to respond to a clumsy request, the rule of law and the importance of transparent voter rolls is overlooked, at our peril.
Connecticut’s Freedom of Information law is constantly under official attack. We should never condone a unilateral act to disobey the law based on an official’s view of the requester or how they might use the data. This is no different than the county clerk who refused to follow the law and issue marriage licenses to those she did not approve.
Voter rolls are constantly made available to both political parties. Recently a contractor for the Republican Party exposed all that data and more. Last year data, likely including voter rolls and more, was insufficiently secured by the Democratic Party.
There is a reason government data, including voter rolls are required to be public. Not so long ago, UConn students used that data to expose the extent to which the rolls included deceased voters. That same data was used by officials to demonstrate in a way we could verify that hardly any were associated with actual fraud. More recently those pubic rolls were used to uncover and confirm that a state representative had voted for several years and been elected based on an illegal residence.
Public voting rolls provide the only means for individuals and news organizations to independently investigate voting fraud; they provide officials with the only means to provide credible proof that fraud is limited; and for the public to trust in the related decisions by the State Elections Enforcement Commission.