CT | CTVotersCount.org

Aspen Ballots, An Issue For Us All

We side completely with the activists, they are on the side of democracy, integrity, and transparency of government. Beyond a CD ballots should be made available to the public, the actual ballots should be made available to the public.

05/17/2013 [Most] ballots [finally] made available: Ballot images from 2009 election online for public inspection <read>

Marks, who on Thursday said she has not spent much time examining the images posted online, wondered why the city withheld 129 ballots and if officials plan to attempt to make contact with voters who cast them since it’s illegal to make distinguishing marks on a ballot.

“How did they get counted in the first place?” Marks asked. “The idea of a secret ballot is that no one — no one — should have an identifiable marking.”

One of the city’s main arguments against releasing the ballots is that it could encourage the practice of voters leaving marks on their ballots in a corrupt cash-for-votes system.

The city had previously fought disclosure of the ballot images all the way to the Colorado Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. Marks won a judgment from the Colorado Court of Appeals in September 2011, which found that the ballot images qualified as public records.

The Court of Appeals directed the City Clerk to withhold ballots that contained markings that could identify a voter, including all write-in votes.

12/28/2009: Letter to the editor: One dozen excuses <read>

Mayor Ireland just sent an intriguing e-mail to the “voting rights community” titled “Why we don’t need your help in running our elections and why a recount is not needed.” It probably wasn’t written to amuse, given the personal attacks in it, but recipients surely chuckled…

4. Election-integrity advocates are destructive nitpickers! Although the pre-election software test tabulated the candidate with the fewest votes as the winner, 15 hours was plenty of time to reconfigure the software before the polls opened…

10. The early voting ballot box at City Hall, accumulating 32 percent of the votes, was sometimes unlocked. Why audit these ballots now? Any possible mischief already happened. An audit now would be meaningless.

12/19/2009: Bev Harris makes the case for public access to ballot images <read>

Concealed vote counting systems have been deemed unconstitutional by the German high court, which ruled in March 2009 that no public election can conceal any essential step in the election from the public. The German Constitution was formed according to requirements provided by the U.S. after WW II. Principles of public sovereignty over government are embedded into our Declaration of Independence (the document which provided much of the argumentation for women’s suffrage), and are also recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…

a precedent will be set which can alleviate some frustrations with computerized voting processes.

9/17/2009: Good news ballots will not be destroyed just yet <read>

9/1/2009 Aspen heats up. From the RedAnt <read>

Aspen citizen Millard Zimet filed the formal complaint with Aspen’s Election Commission questioning whether Aspen conducted a secret ballot election in May 2009.

Reading the complaint, it seems that Mr. Zimet has a strong argument that it was not a secret election.

The post also points to a series of emails between Aspen Mayor Mick and Kathy Dopp who has articulated the inadequacies of Instant Runoff Voting as used in Aspen.

********

Aspen Colorado held an IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) election. A CD was made of all the ballots. Activists would like access to the CD to perform a post-election audit, but the city objects. An editorial by activitst leading the charge <read>

If there is a law that actually says we the people cannot see our anonymous ballots, and if it says the permanent record of this groundbreaking and unique election in Colorado history should be destroyed, then such a law should be changed. If somehow the laws to which the City has alluded apply, we are confident that election integrity advocates will lobby to change them. The public will and we hope the City Council will understand the need to view a disk of the ballots, at any time for any reason…

The City of Aspen is trying to translate the requirement for destruction as a message about how dangerous the ballots are. These ballots are only dangerous to a small group- anyone who might fear the revelation of fraud or non-accidental error. After the write-in handwriting and any stray marks are removed or redacted, reviewing ballot images can only safeguard, not endanger voter privacy and confidence. .

Aspen wrote in its election press release: “By making the rankings and all other election data public, everyone had the opportunity to double-check the IRV tallies themselves.” We like the sound of that. Will Aspen now look for ways to hide that data from the public instead of enthusiastically joining the general trend towards more transparency in government?

Another article from the Aspen city public relations director <read>

After thorough and significant review, the city attorney has concluded that the release of the ballots, or their images, would violate state law. Colorado, along with every other state in the country, began to guarantee the secret ballot to its citizens at the end of the 19th century. Every state and almost all jurisdictions have adopted laws and rules to ensure that ballots are cast in absolute privacy and remain secret even after the election is completed.

The editorial refutes this position:

You alone might be able to recognize your own ballot from the way you have voted, if you remember the many rankings on your ballot. The protection of the anonymity of the ballot is demanded by the Colorado Constitution as the city has pointed out. If the city has counted any ballots containing identifying marks in any election, it has violated the law. Should the voters be able to learn whether this has happened? The city says you are not allowed to find out- by law. The city says trust: but don’t verify.

Our opinion:

The ballots are the actual public record of the vote. The public needs assurance that the CD matches the actual votes.
We believe activists are correct in their interpretation of ballot secrecy – if it is identifiable then its not a legal vote.
We have the same issue in Connecticut and many other states. Here ballots must be kept under seal by law for 14 days after the election, then stored for twenty-two months (federal elections) or six months (other elections), and then destroyed. There is no explicit opportunity in the law for the public to access the ballots.
Meanwhile there are indications that the ballots in Connecticut may show that the reported election results for third parties were incorrect. That Working Families Party cross-endorsed candidates were short changed. That the Green Party candidate for President was also short changed. Only the ballots can say and provide satisfaction that the election was correctly reported.
Where laws don’t allow public review of ballots, they should be changed.

Some states provide access. Here our hats are off to Ohio law. It made possible the investigation by citizens of questionable results.

Update: 02/25/2010: <read>

What can we say but “Good Grief, Aspen!”

The memorandum by the Defendant appears to seek to impair the discovery of facts in the course of the litigation. The Defendant is arguing that the Plaintiff is attempting to contest the election outside of legal time constraints and making suggestions about that motive. Defendant is also appears to be making the argument that benefit to the public interest is not among the possible reasons to inspect ballot images, and that testimony by TrueBallot may show “errors and irregularities” which may be of interest, but not relevant to the case at bar. On the other hand, the possibility of learning about “errors and irregularities” does seem to me to be a reason to inspect the ballot images.

Update: 3/11/2010 – Case Dismissed – Public Cannot See the Ballots. Harvey Branscomb’s Comments <read>

Civilized society normally keeps ample records of how it makes decisions–much more so now with inexpensive digital record-keeping–allowing historians as well as the general public to help policy makers with productive improvements. Election policy too would benefit from guidance by similarly complete historical records. Instead, hundred year old laws are being interpreted to require consistent destruction of all records…

The court appears to have decided that Marilyn Marks, the plaintiff, has no viable argument, yet the court has not yet heard that argument. The judge acted only two days before a vital deposition was to be taken. This blocked a long-fought-for opportunity to obtain valuable information from the election contractor TrueBallot. That deposition would have informed the court and the public on the relationship of ballot images to the paper originals. It would have given a good indication of how beneficial to the public those images could be.

Update: 4/18/2010: Criticism of Caleb Kleppner Guest Editorial in Aspen Times Sept. 17, 2009: Aspen Election Transparency <read>

Two views of election transparency: An OpEd, Annotated:

[Caleb Kleppner]Whether you like IRV or hate IRV, Aspen’s election was a model of transparency and verifiability, and American elections would be improved if they incorporated elements of Aspen’s election.

HB[Branscomb]>; I do not agree that Aspen was a “model” but I do agree that American elections would benefit from more transparency and verifiability such as what Mr. Kleppner’s company provides. For Aspen to become a model for a superior election, it is necessary to look at the details and come clean about the defects of this innovative election and to avoid making these mistakes again, whether you like or hate IRV.

Caleb Kleppner is a vice president at TrueBallot Inc., which has run elections for municipalities, labor unions, associations, state Democratic and Republican parties, and others over the past 15 years.

HB>; Harvie Branscomb is a Board Member of Coloradans for Voting Integrity, a Trustee of the Colorado Voter Group, and appointed by the Democratic Party to be Eagle County Canvass Board member.

Update 10/25/2010: Aspen Daily News: Do Away With IRV <read>

Hartford: Wasting $ As Usual

Story from Jeffery B. Cohen at the Courant:

.”Working Families Party registrar Urania Petit called Cityline this morning to complain. Her Democratic colleague, Olga Iris Vazquez, hired a six-week, $13-an-hour, temporary employee two weeks ago to help with the September primary.”

Story from Jeffery B. Cohen at the Courant: <read>

Working Families Party registrar Urania Petit called Cityline this morning to complain. Her Democratic colleague, Olga Iris Vazquez, hired a six-week, $13-an-hour, temporary employee two weeks ago to help with the September primary.

But turns out there’s no need for a primary. And the employee is still working for another four or so weeks.

Some of the comments said the third party registrar was wasting money, another defended her.

As we have said previously, if Hartford acted responsibly, having a third registrar is no reason that costs have to go up at all. <read>

For a city the size of Hartford there should be no problem having three registrars and the costs should be minimal. Each city sets the budget, salary, hours, benefits, and staffing of their Registrars Of Voters Office. Hartford could simply cut staffing and perhaps cut registrars’ hours or salary when three are elected to do the job of two.

CTVotersCount is Two Years Old

Thursday marks the 2nd anniversary of CTVotesCount.
Our goals for the blog remain.
As we start our 3rd year, our commitment continues.

Birthdaycake Thursday marks the 2nd anniversary of CTVotesCount. We had been planning the organization and the blog for a couple of months – we launched after a the end of a summer vacation. We wondered if there would be any news during August?. We reported on some recent reports from VerifiedVoting and UConn . Coincidentally, it the Top To Bottom Review commissioned by the Secretary of the State of California was just coming out.

Our goals for the blog remain:

To be a source of Connecticut election integrity news and views
To be a source of national election integrity news and views relevant to Connecticut
To be a repository of that election integrity news, reports, and links for reference
To be relevant, accurate, and interesting.

As we start our 3rd 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!

Bysewicz Endorses Federal Bill To Improve Military and Overseas Voting

We continue to agree with Secretary Bysiewicz on military and overseas voting. There is room for improvement in ballot access for military and overseas voters. There are several bill in Washington D.C. aimed at improving the situation. This bill provides for sensible actions without moving toward risky internet, fax or email in voting.

Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz, has endorsed Overseas Voting Practical Amendments Act of 2009 [H.R. 1739] sponsored byU.S. Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D14-New York) and Michael Honda (D15-California) <Press Release>

We continue to agree with Secretary Bysiewicz on this issue. There is much room for improvement in ballot access for military and overseas voters. There are several bill in Washington D.C. aimed at improving the situation. This bill provides for sensible actions without moving toward risky internet, fax or email in voting. <The full bill text etc.> We especially note:

Nothing in this Act or in any amendment made by this Act may be construed to authorize the Presidential designee under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act or any State or local election official to require or authorize any absent uniformed services voter or overseas voter under such Act or any other individual to use the Internet to cast a ballot in any election for public office.

Endorsing in a letter, the Secretary had several suggestions to further improved the bill <the letter>

In a letter to Congressman Robert Brady(D1-PA), Chairman of the House Administration Committee, Secretary Bysiewicz endorsed the federal legislation by writing that it “…would go a long way toward improving access to the ballot for our military and overseas voters by taking advantage of technological developments, providing greater clarity of procedures for voters and election officials and ensuring consistency among the states. I view H.R. 1739 as a practical next step in providing needed clarification and an update of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, a next step that will greatly enhance the access of our military and overseas citizens to the ballot without undue burden or cost to states.”

Is Early Voting A Good Idea For Connecticut?

Connecticut (like the other New England states) is not Minnesota. Most states have county election management, while New England has town election management. We are concerned that it could be a costly, risky proposition. Here are our major reservations:

Last week, we highlighted a commentary by Minnesota Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie. We mentioned our reservations with implementing one of his suggestions for improvement in Connecticut. From Ritchie’s commentary:

Implementing early voting can greatly eliminate the number of people casting absentee ballots and thus reduce the number of rejected absentee ballots.

Connecticut (like the other New England states) is not Minnesota. Most states have county election management, while New England has town election management. At CTVotersCount we are conditionally against* early voting for Connecticut. We are concerned that it could be a costly, risky proposition. Here are our major reservations:

If early voting polling places were set-up with a full complement of election officials using optical scanners and a strong chain of custody it could be reasonably safe. That is a big and costly “if”. Since we have 169 towns, each independently managing their own polling places – each would have to set-up and manage at least one polling place. One would be enough since optical scanners can be setup to handle multiple ballot types, from multiple districts, such as they are now setup in many towns absentee ballot counting. Three days of absentee voting would add about 60% to the current election day costs in the state, putting a highly disproportionate burden on small towns. (Officials frequently complain about the burden of post-election audits, which represent a fraction of the costs of opening 169 polling places for just one day). Another risk/cost of consolidated early voting is that more care and more risk is involved to make sure voters are given the correct ballot and replacements for spoiled ballots.
Managing multiple days of voting and chain-of-custody provides additional opportunities for error or fraud, requiring additional procedures and vigilance. Post-election Audit Observation Audit Reports from the Coalition have shown frequent violations of procedures, including chain-of-custody violations. UConn Memory Card Audits have also show frequent failures in following current procedures. We will remain skeptical that early voting can be secure, until there is a convincing change in following existing procedures.
We have heard proposals that Early Voting could be accomplished by having a voting machine in the “corner” of the Registrar’s or Town Clerk’s office or by having an equivalent of an absentee ballot voted at the Registrar’s or Town Clerk’s office. We find both of these ‘low budget’ options questionable. One of the problems Mark Ritchie is trying to solve for Minnesota with early voting, is decreasing the volume of absentee votes, which are costly and have a high frequency of disenfranchising voters. Voters are disenfranchised primarily because they made an innocent mistake which disqualifies, for good reasons, their ballot from being counted. Absentee voting also disenfranchises voters because they are not offered an opportunity to correct overvotes (unlike ballots submitted by the voter to a scanner). There are also chain-of-custody issues. A scanner in the ‘corner” etc. is insufficient – voting requires a tabulator tender, registration list checkers, and ballot clerks – especially when there are several ballot types being voted in one place. We tend to think of a few absentee ballots, but a more correct assumption is that a large percentage of voters will choose to vote early – their votes will provide the critical margin to many contests.
Finally, early voting shortens current deadlines and increases complexity. Each day of early voting is another day earlier that candidates, ballots, and memory cards must be finalized and petitions completed. Each day of early voting impacts primary dates and the time period between primaries and elections. It extends the window and complexity if a candidate pulls out of a race or becomes incapacitated.

Elections are primarily about democracy – citizens choosing and controlling our government. Voter convenience is a high priority along with security and integrity. Cost and election official convenience are also important considerations. While skeptical, we remain open to the possibility that voters, legislators, and election officials might be willing to pay the price, develop procedures, and manage elections in a way that early voting with integrity would require.

(*) When we say we are “Conditionally Against” a proposition, we mean that nobody has proposed a realistic safe way to accomplish the proposition. We remain open to the possibility that a means may be found that would pass the scrutiny of the majority of computer scientists, security experts, election officials, and voting integrity advocates.

(*) When we say we are “Conditionally For” a proposition, we mean that other states have safe implementations of the proposition or computer scientists, security experts, election officials, and voting integrity advocates have recommended a safe solution. We caution that a particular implementation or law may not meet a reasonable standard of safety.

Questions for Secretary of the State Candidates

Over time we are developing some elections oriented questions we would ask every candidate for the office of Secretary of the State. This is our current draft of some open-ended, yet sometimes detailed questions, updated as of 12/13/2009.

(See our Editor’s Note on the 2010 race for Secretary of the State)

What qualifies you to perform the duties of Secretary of the State including the roles of Chief Elections Official, recording, and reporting?
What specific experience do you have with election laws, voter registration, and election management? Have you served as an election official? Do you have relevant experience leading a staff of professionals?
What changes in Connecticut and National election laws would you work for as Secretary of the State?
What changes would you make in the operations of the Secretary of the State’s office, the conduct of elections, the training of election officials, and the supervision of election officials? The Secretary of the State’s web site?
What changes would you make on your own initiative in your first 100 days and beyond?
What is your view of the current state of election integrity in Connecticut? Comment specifically on the results of the post-election audits, UConn memory card audits, the chain-of-custody of ballots, the certification of election results,and the state’s dependence on Diebold and LHS Associates.
Would you support in-state programming of memory cards and the independent testing of all memory cards prior to each election using the existing UConn developed, state funded testing system?
Which current and past Secretaries of State and laws in other states are worth emulating in Connecticut? Why?
In each of the last three years, several Democrats in the Connecticut Legislature have proposed implementing the National Popular Vote by interstate compact. Democrats opposed to the Compact include Secretary Bysiewicz and Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. What is your position on the National Popular Vote Compact?
IRV or Instant Runoff Voting has been broached in the Legislature and is under consideration in one Connecticut town for local elections. National experience has been mixed with a huge controversy in Aspen, CO and outright repeal in Burlington, VT. Can you explain IRV? Would you support it for Connecticut towns and statewide?
Connecticut and New York are possibly the only states retaining a, so called, Partisan Ballot. Can you describe the difference between a partisan and a non-partisan ballot? Would you support a non-partisan ballot for Connecticut?
We here a lot about increasing turn out, by making it more convenient to vote. How would you increase turn out by making elections more competitive in Connecticut? For instance, would you change any ballot access requirements for candidates?
Our election laws are antiquated, complex and confusing. For instance, the way paper ballots are preserved are described differently for different election types, for absentee vs. scanned ballots, vs. all paper elections. States differ in many regards on the sequence of election events and the timing of certification, recanvasses, and audits. For instance we do recanvasses in five days and start audits 15 days after the election, while Minnesota does audits in five days and starts recounts fourteen days after the election. Would you support a review of all our election laws to consider the best practices of other states in light of our change to optical scanners?
Good government groups recommend post-election audits independent from the Secretary of the State. Would you support legislation for audits independent of the Secretary of the State? Would you support requiring supervision of counting by officials independent of the same local officials that conducted the local election? Would you support State reimbursement of towns for post-election audit expenses?
Registrars complain of the expense and difficulty in setting up the IVS system for persons with disabilities, while few voters use the IVS which at most only accommodates voters who are blind. What would you do?
The Secretary of the State’s web site is consistently rated as one of the least useful when compared to other states. Would you support the posting of all election results by district for each contest, separated by optical scanned votes, absentee votes, manually counted votes, and provisional ballots along with the posting of copies of district Moderators’ Returns and optical scanner tapes? What other improvements would you make to the Secretary of the State’s web site to facilitate the voting process?
In the majority of Connecticut municipalities either Registrar has access to a single key allowing access to voted ballots, in many towns anyone in the registrars’ office has access to the key. Would you support legislation to require dual locks and two opposing election officials required to be present for all access to ballots, with such access controlled and recorded by the municipal clerk?
Registrars complain that the advice given by the Secretary of the State’s Office often depends on who responds to your question and on what day. Would you implement a system of tracking questions and responses to election official, candidate, and citizen questions?
President Obama has characterized cyber security as “one of the most serious … security challenges of the 21st century” yet, Congress passed and the President signed the MOVE Act providing support for pilot programs for Internet voting for Military and Overseas voters. Do you favor or oppose the submission of votes via the Internet, email or fax?
The state saved money and apparently increased citizen service by consolidating the Probate Court. Most states beyond New England have either elected or civil service professional election officials conducting elections by county. Would you support a complete review of the organization of our elections, with an eye to adopting some type of regional system consolidating the current 339+ registrars of voters in Connecticut?

Secretary of The State Candidate, Corey Brinson, Interview On Face The State

Sunday morning, Secretary of the State Candidate Corey Brinson was interview by Dennis House on Face The State at WFSB.

Sunday morning, Secretary of the State Candidate Corey Brinson was interview by Dennis House on Face The State at WFSB. <vodeo> (This post has been extended and corrected from an earlier version created before the video was available)

Note: This is our 1st commentary on the Secretary of The State’s race in the 2010 election. We intend to provide comprehensive coverage of the race, highlighting news reports, interviews and issues, yet sticking primarily to comments on election integrity. <see editor’s note>

From Dennis House’s bio at WFSB,

“Face The State” host Dennis House is a native New Englander and a resident of Connecticut since 1992. He thrives on grilling newsmakers on the venerable news program, which debuted on Channel 3 in the 1960s. His goal is to bring the politicians and public figures closer to Channel 3 viewers.

From Corey Brinson’s website:

I am running in this race because more people in our State will vote for the next American Idol than for the next Governor of Connecticut, and too few people are excited about seeking public office…

I am running in this race because in this recession we need to encourage business development and job growth…

I am running in this race because we are failing as a State to attract and retain our young professionals…

Interview highlights:

Mr. Brinson’s intention is to “Inspire a new wave of leaders” in Connecticut playing a role similar to Barack Obama for the Connecticut 2010 election. To “get people excited about this campaign…bring in people who have never been a part of or never been excited of the political process”.

He is not running against Susan Bysiewicz, the current Secretary of the State: “Susan has been a fine public servant, a great Secretary of the State”. “The biggest opponent in this race, I will be running against myself”

His strongest stated positions are ending the business entry tax and “tax credits for young professionals” to keep them in the state.

He was inspired to run by his aunt, Hartford City Common Council Member, Veronica Airey-Wilson. (the earlier, rush version of the post had incorrectly indicated another person was his aunt)

He stated his major qualifications are as a small business owner (law practice) and the son of a small business owner (painter).

We have no comments on the substance of the interview, except that we found not much of substance covered – far from a grilling – and lacking questions related to the elections role of the Secretary of the State. Over time we intend develop some questions we would ask every candidate for the office of Secretary of the State.

As of the latest version of the SEEC candidate listing, dated May 11, there is one other announced candidate, Republican Richard Abbate, who was the Republican candidate in 2006. And one candidate with an exploritory committee, Democrat James Spallone, currently co-chair of the Government Administration and Elections Committee.

Editor’s Note: 2010 Secretary of the State Election

We intend to provide comprehensive coverage of the 2010 Connecticut Secretary of the State race, highlighting news reports, interviews and issues, yet sticking primarily to comments on relevant to election management and election integrity.

Our bias when it comes to choosing a Secretary of the State, is that election responsibilities are the cart, the horse, and most of the content of the office where a Secretary can make differences, both positive or negative.

We intend to provide comprehensive coverage of the 2010 Connecticut Secretary of the State race, highlighting news reports, interviews and issues, yet sticking primarily to comments relevant to election management and election integrity.

We acknowledge that we are biased. We believe the most important duty of the Secretary of the State is serving as the state’s Chief Election Official. In that capacity first and foremost insuring election integrity, followed by assisting and encouraging voters, while assisting, leading, and training election officials across the state. Our bias when it comes to choosing a Secretary of the State, is that election responsibilities are the cart, the horse, and most of the content of the office where a Secretary can make differences, both positive or negative.

The Secretary has other important functions and official duties, but those appear to us to be more routine, calling for effective management and quality service to the citizens of the state. Like all citizens the Secretary can comment on and work toward reforms in areas related to elections, other official duties, and general issues. We have no problems with the Secretary calling for ethics reform, initiatives associated with small business, changes in the budget, eduction, honoring veterans etc.- some of these are related to the official duties of the office, some are not. But when it comes to elections the Secretary is directly involved in the entire process.

From the Connecticut Statute:

Sec. 9-3. Secretary to be Commissioner of Elections. Presumption concerning rulings and opinions. The Secretary of the State, by virtue of the office, shall be the Commissioner of Elections of the state, with such powers and duties relating to the conduct of elections as are prescribed by law and, unless otherwise provided by state statute, the secretary’s regulations, declaratory rulings, instructions and opinions, if in written form, shall be presumed as correctly interpreting and effectuating the administration of elections and primaries under this title, except for chapter 155, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the right of appeal provided under the provisions of chapter 54.

Sec. 9-4. Duties of secretary. The Secretary of the State, in addition to other duties imposed by law, shall, as such commissioner, (1) advise local election officials in connection with proper methods of conducting elections and referenda as defined in subsection (n) of section 9-1, and, upon request of a municipal official, matters arising under chapter 99; (2) prepare regulations and instructions for the conduct of elections, as designated by law; (3) provide local election officials with a sufficient number of copies of election laws pamphlets and materials necessary to the conduct of elections; (4) distribute all materials concerning proposed laws or amendments required by law to be submitted to the electors; (5) recommend to local election officials the form of registration cards and blanks; (6) determine, in the manner provided by law, the forms for the preparation of voting machines, for the recording of the vote and the conduct of the election and certification of election returns; (7) prepare the ballot title or statement to be placed on the ballot for any proposed law or amendment to the Constitution to be submitted to the electors of the state; (8) certify to the several boards the form of official ballots for state and municipal offices; (9) provide the form and manner of filing notification of vacancies, nomination and subsequent appointment to fill such vacancies; (10) prescribe, provide and distribute absentee voting forms for use by the municipal clerks; (11) examine and approve nominating petitions filed under section 9-453o; and (12) distribute corrupt practices forms and provide instructions for completing and filing the same.

Connecticut Will Not Be Illinois or New York

Governor Jodi Rell signed the bill for elections to fill Senate vacancies.

Our senators matter. It is worth the estimated $6,000,000 cost of such elections, where our senators make decisions involving billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Such “Special Elections” should not be exempt (as they currently are) from the small cost and huge value of post-election audits. Such elections are not exempt from the risks of error and fraud.

Governor Jodi Rell signed the bill for elections to fill Senate vacancies. See <CTNewsJunkie>

In an unexpected move, Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed the US Senate vacancy bill which takes away the governor’s power to appoint someone to a vacant US Senate seat.

“Although the current process for filling a Senate vacancy has worked well in our state for many decades, this bill gives directly to the people of Connecticut the decision on who would fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate,” Rell said in a press release. “Since taking office as Governor, I have done everything in my power to make Connecticut a model for all states when it comes to openness, transparency and citizen participation in government.”

Statement of Representative Spallone, Co-Chair of the Government Administration and Elections Commitee:

For IMMEDIATE Release Contact: Rose Ryan

June 26, 2009 Office: (860) 240-8527

Statement of State Representative James Spallone (D-Chester, Deep River, Essex & Haddam) the House Chair of the Government, Administration and Elections Committee regarding Governor M. Jodi Rell’s signing today of Substitute Bill 913 – An Act Concerning United States Senate Vacancies:

“I would like to thank Governor Rell for signing this bill into law today and making Connecticut a leader in fair elections. Connecticut voters can now choose their Senator when a vacancy arises just as we already do for our congressional representatives, as we did from 1913 to 1945. This is the democratic way.”

“Through this legislation, my colleagues in the General Assembly and Governor Rell have demonstrated their commitment to making Connecticut a national leader in election reform efforts.”

“Connecticut is now the first and only state in the nation to reform its Senate vacancy process in the wake of the scandal in Illinois and controversy in New York.”

CTVotersCount is pleased that the citizens of Connecticut will elect our senators. Our senators matter. It is worth the estimated $6,000,000 cost of such elections, where our senators make decisions involving billions of dollars and thousands of lives. Such “Special Elections” should not be exempt (as they currently are) from the small cost and huge value of post-election audits. Such elections are not exempt from the risks of error and fraud.

Connecticut Could be Minnesota

Here is an article from the National Journal pointing out what Minnesota demonstrated about absentee ballots which is instructive as we consider expanding their use here in Connecticut:

Update: Median Lawsuit for public access to ballots: <read>

We have the same concern in Connecticut where ballots are sealed from public access and then immediately shredded.

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

We have pointed to the integrity of the Minnesota recounts and audits as models of integrity. We have also pointed to the lessons learned in Minnesota that call into question the idea of a national popular vote and the risks of absentee ballots. Here is an article from the National Journal pointing out what Minnesota demonstrated about absentee ballots which is instructive as we consider expanding their use here in Connecticut: National Journal: Your State Could Be Minnesota -The Disputed Senate Race Highlights Problems With The Way States Count Absentee Ballots <read>

Absentee ballots were “definitely the Achilles’ heel of Minnesota,” said Edward B. Foley, a professor at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law, who predicts that errors in counting absentee ballots could become one of the next big problems plaguing the nation’s election system. (A related trouble spot on the horizon, according to Foley, is the erratic counting of provisional ballots.)

Absentee ballot use rose in the 2008 election, fueled by high interest in the presidential race and anticipated long lines. Nearly 30 states now allow absentee voting without an excuse such as medical or travel reasons. Early voting is also on the increase.

As states have embraced absentee voting, however, reports of problems have rolled in. Voters in Colorado, Florida and Ohio had their ballots rejected because of errors such as failing to include a copy of their ID with the ballot, forgetting to sign or signing in the wrong place, and failing to seal an inner envelope.