My Nov 3 Voting Plan

There have been many articles with quotes from the Secretary of the State, municipal clerks,  and registrars. Many Facebook posts with comments from voters, registrars and clerks. I have also read many articles about the changes in the Postal Service. From all that I have the following plan to assure my vote is counted in November You might consider it, if you vote in Connecticut:

  1. Wait for the prefilled application in the mail. It should arrive in late September. (If not received by Oct 1st, I will download an application from the SOTS Website AB Page.)
  2. Within 24 hours of receiving the AB application, I will carefully fill it out, following all directions.
  3. Also within 24 hours…

There have been many articles with quotes from the Secretary of the State, municipal clerks, and registrars. Many Facebook posts with comments from voters, registrars and clerks. I have also read many articles about the changes in the Postal Service. From all that I have the following plan to assure my vote is counted in November You might consider it, if you vote in Connecticut:

  1. Wait for the prefilled application in the mail. It should arrive in late September. (If not received by Oct 1st, I will download an application from the SOTS Website AB Page.)
  2. Within 24 hours of receiving the AB application, I will carefully fill it out, following all directions.
  3. Also within 24 hours I will deposit it in the Ballot Box outside Town Hall in my town, nowhere else.
  4. Wait for the absentee ballot packet that should arrive sometime in October. (If not received by Oct 26th I will call my municipal clerk and arrange to get a replacement, in person.)
  5. Within 24 hours of receiving the AB ballot packet, I will carefully follow the directions, sealing the ballot in the inner envelope, signing the inner envelope, enclosing both in the outer envelope, and any other directions.
  6. Also within 24 hours of receiving the packet, I will deposit the resulting packet in the Ballot Box outside Town Hall in my town, nowhere else.

FAILING all that, I will vote in my polling place on November 3rd (I suggest avoiding 6:00am, as that is often the only time there is a significant line, in my experience).

If you are not sure that you are registered, then check here: <Voter Lookup Tool> (Do that by October 1st, better still do it Right Now!

Verified Voting writes Secretary Merrill supporting Citizen Audit’s call for expanded audits

The Verified Voting Foundation has written a letter to Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill, supporting expanded audits based on Connecticut’s expansion of absentee ballots: <read> Their support was based on the Citizen Audit’s recent Op-Ed. in the CTMirror.

The Verified Voting Foundation has written a letter to Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill, supporting expanded audits based on Connecticut’s expansion of absentee ballots: <read> Their support was based on the Citizen Audit’s recent Op-Ed. in the CTMirror.

Verified Voting writes concerning the exclusion of absentee ballots from Connecticut’s post-election audit. Connecticut made the right decision for election integrity when the state passed legislation in 2007 mandating post-election audits. Christopher Krebs, director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, recently testified that “the ability to conduct post-election audits is critical to establishing the integrity of the election.” Unfortunately, the anticipated massive surge of absentee ballots in 2020 threatens the credibility of the audit. As you know, Connecticut generally exempts absentee ballots, along with hand-counted ballots and election day registration ballots, from its audit. We urge you to broaden the audit this year to include absentee ballots…

An audit’s credibility depends on whether the audit sample is reasonably representative of all ballots cast. Excluding absentee ballots is undesirable even when they comprise less than ten percent of ballots cast…

We understand the pressures facing state and local election officials this year. Fortunately, as Luther Weeks of Connecticut Citizen Election Audit has pointed out, Connecticut’s machine-assisted audit system can facilitate conducting audits that include absentee ballots…

An increase in absentee voting inevitably will raise questions about ballot handling, adjudication, and security as well as tabulation. Accordingly, we agree with Weeks that an independent audit of all absentee ballot processes, culminating in tabulation, should take place.

Read the entire letter here: <read>

Why I am not serving in a polling place in the August primary

A few weeks ago my local registrars emailed all recent polling place officials to ask if we would serve in the August primary. I was not looking forward to the anticipated email where I would have to choose. I had been thinking about it, knowing lots of facts positive and negative:

  • The email said there might be as few as three officials in a polling place – that sealed it for me.

I have proposed to assist in counting absentee ballots or other central office function. There, I can likely make a significant difference. Early in my election official career, I led a central count absentee ballot function five times.

 

A few weeks ago my local registrars emailed all recent polling place officials to ask if we would serve in the August primary. I was not looking forward to the anticipated email where I would have to choose. I had been thinking about it, knowing lots of facts positive and negative:

  • There would be a huge need for officials, as many would choose not to serve. Many novice officials would need to be recruited and trained.
  • Based on my experience, there is a need for an experienced, certified moderator in each polling place. Several times in recent years I had served as the only certified moderator in a polling place with previous experience. Either as the Moderator or an Assistant Registrar with the other moderators and assistant registrars all inexperienced, certified or not. My volunteering would mean a polling place would have sufficient knowledge to work, if there were enough officials.
  • I am in a moderate risk category with ample age and a moderate preexisting condition. I would seek agreement from my partner before I would put her in danger.
  • I was not sure how effective I could be in a mask for a 17-18 hour day.
  • I predicted (and still predict) a disaster news theme, as I predict at least several towns will have a number of polling places that do not work. (Similarly I predict a few will fail to provide an efficient and deliberate count of absentee ballots  as well.)
  • I could save, at most, one polling place from disaster, yet maybe despite my prediction, the vast majority of polling places with all new officials will work. Or some other experienced moderator would save mine, anyway.

I read the email carefully before responding:

  • The email said there might be as few as three officials in a polling place – that sealed it for me. A polling place like those in our town had about 1,000 voters in the 2016 Presidential Primary. It was busy in 2016 with that number. We had about the minimum, eight people, to handle a check-in line and ballot clerk for each party. A primary is busy serving many stressed voters who say, occasionally correctly, that our lists say they are not registered in the party they think they are. Even at half that number of voters we should have eight officials – plus we need to supervise voter distancing, pen distribution and cleaning etc. Three could not service 500 or more voters in a day. The normal non-COVID minimum is six officials, for any size polling place.
  • AND there is curbside voting, requiring two officials to spend about 10 minutes entirely dedicated to going back-and-forth to the parking lot to service one voter – that would leave only one official inside handling everything. A no-no leaving the polling place with a single official from one party, doing the job of eight officials.
  • No matter the risks, I could not save a polling place with three or anywhere near that few officials.

I have proposed to assist in counting absentee ballots or other central office function. There, I can likely make a significant difference. Early in my election official career, I led a central count absentee ballot function five times.

PS: Today’s Hartford Courant points out that number of three officials is a statewide minimum: Challenges await in presidential primary – Towns, cities prepare for Aug. 11 vote amid COVID-19 concerns <read>

 

CTMirror: Connecticut’s upcoming primary election should be audited. Will it really be?

Op-Ed CTMirror:  Connecticut’s upcoming primary election should be audited. Will it really be? <read>

Courant article on Merrill/Blumenthal press conference raises concerns.

In today’s Hartford Courant a report on yesterday’s press conference: Absentee ballot process smooth so far Blumenthal wants more election funding <read>

Gabe Rosenberg, a spokesman for Merrill, said the $45 million in additional funding would go toward new voting machines, new tabulators, more ballot boxes, voter education and enhanced cybersecurity. He said the funds, if distributed promptly, could ease a potentially chaotic Election Day in November.“It’s going to take along time to count because we don’t have high-speed ballot counters,” Rosenberg said. “That’s something we could buy with that kind of money.”…

As for the security of the new ballot boxes, Merrill said the receptacles were no less secure than a typical mailbox.“Just think of this as a mailbox,” she said. “The usual way you send back your ballot for 100 years is you send it back in the mail. This is just a fancy mailbox, and it’s here for a reason, because many town halls are still not open for business all the time.”

A crisis in nothing to waste, yet spending $45 million between now and November seems a bit excessive, especially when everything is complicated by COVID-19.

In today’s Hartford Courant a report on yesterday’s press conference: Absentee ballot process smooth so far Blumenthal wants more election funding <read>

First a note of caution. I have been misquoted by the press, so perhaps some of that applies here.  Here are the disturbing quotes:

Gabe Rosenberg, a spokesman for Merrill, said the $45 million in additional funding would go toward new voting machines, new tabulators, more ballot boxes, voter education and enhanced cybersecurity. He said the funds, if distributed promptly, could ease a potentially chaotic Election Day in November.“It’s going to take along time to count because we don’t have high-speed ballot counters,” Rosenberg said. “That’s something we could buy with that kind of money.”…

As for the security of the new ballot boxes, Merrill said the receptacles were no less secure than a typical mailbox.“Just think of this as a mailbox,” she said. “The usual way you send back your ballot for 100 years is you send it back in the mail. This is just a fancy mailbox, and it’s here for a reason, because many town halls are still not open for business all the time.”

A crisis in nothing to waste, yet spending $45 million between now and November seems a bit excessive, especially when everything is complicated by COVID-19.

  • The first concern is that evaluating and procuring new voting machines is very expensive and time consuming to do well, a long deliberate process. When Connecticut chose the AccuVoteOS machines in use now, the process took abut a year, with several machines evaluated by the UConn Voter Center, followed by public feedback and focus groups of voters, those with disabilities, officials, and technical experts. Even then  Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz made a poor choice. To her credit, quickly changed for the better. Followed by close to a year of education of officials and voters along with pilot use in 25 towns. Not something to do in haste.
  • We do not need high speed scanners. Its a myth that our current scanners significantly slow absentee vote counting. I have led central count absentee vote processing five times. I  also led a polling place where a scanner broke and we had to read 1,500 ballots into another scanner – that was done intermittently in less that two hours while voters continued to scan their votes into that same scanner. Scanning is a small part of absentee processing, perhaps 10%. In Glastonbury. in November 2016. we had less than 20,000 votes for President, 90+% counted in six polling place scanners. If we used six scanners for absentee counting, with a reasonable plan, they could count all the votes in a few hours, overlapped with the other aspects of processing absentees. Glastonbury has at least two scanners already dedicated to absentee counting.  Secretary of the State Merrill has already purchased a reserve supply of AccuVoteOS scanners. Used AccuVoteOS scanners are available at about $40 at auction sites and dealers.
  • Its a big deal to purchase and test high speed scanners. We can’t use just any scanner. We need a high speed scanner made for vote counting.  Not just any vote counting, but compatible with ballots used by our AccuVoteOS.  It would help if they did not require separate programming from the AccuVoteOS scanners and did well with folded or creased ballots.
  • We do not currently audit absentee ballot scanners. Unless that is addressed, this August and November only the scanners in polling places will be subject to audit. Inadequate with uniform scanners, yet all but useless if a different model is used for absentees and counts the majority of ballots in the election.
  • These new ballot boxes are vulnerable and will be targets. Once again, if they are safe from attack, let us see the tests. Other states use them and keep them under video surveillance.

As I have said before, in this crisis I support expanded mail-in voting. Yet we cannot abandon common sense.

Block Chain Fantasy…Chained for good!

We told you so.  And now it is final, from the Hartford Courant: With $400M Fintech Village apparently dead, West Hartford Town Council prepares to move on; 

Aug 2019:  West Hartford Scam Playing Out As We Predicted 

We told you so.  And now it is final, from the Hartford Courant: With $400M Fintech Village apparently dead, West Hartford Town Council prepares to move on; <read>

With the plan to convert the former UConn West Hartford campus into the $400 million Fintech Village tech hub essentially dead, West Hartford is going to take another look at buying the 58-acre parcel in the Bishop’s Corner neighborhood.

The town reached an agreement with Ideanomics, Fintech Village’s parent company, have reached a deal that gives West Hartford the right of first refusal on an sales deal. The town will also examine buying the property.

Ideanomics said earlier this year and repeated in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing Tuesday that its much ballyhooed West Hartford project is a “non-core asset” and that it is looking to divest it

Aug 2019:  West Hartford Scam Playing Out As We Predicted <read>

Chickens come home to roost for Stratford Registrar

Last year there were hearings on a close election debacle in Stratford. It looked from the hearings that the registrars and moderator messed up and tried to look good before the General Assembly.  In the end the General Assembly deadlocked and apparently there were no consequences for the Registrars. (See Deadlocked Committee on Contested Elections passes ball to whole House) The House never considered or acted on the deadlocked Committee’s recommendations.

Yet now we learn that the Democratic Town Committee did not endorse the incumbent registrar. (See: CTPost Article which did not mention this past history):

The Demoratic (sic) Town Committee snubbed the party’s incumbent registrar of voters during an endorsement meeting Wednesday, lining up a possible primary in the race.

Last year there were hearings on a close election debacle in Stratford. It looked from the hearings that the registrars and moderator messed up and tried to look good before the General Assembly.  In the end the General Assembly deadlocked and apparently there were no consequences for the Registrars. (See Deadlocked Committee on Contested Elections passes ball to whole House) The House never considered or acted on the deadlocked Committee’s recommendations.

Yet now we learn that the Democratic Town Committee did not endorse the incumbent registrar. (See: CTPost Article which did not mention this past history):

The Demoratic (sic) Town Committee snubbed the party’s incumbent registrar of voters during an endorsement meeting Wednesday, lining up a possible primary in the race.

Three-time incumbent Rick Marcone, himself a former chair of the Democratic Town Committee, was not even nominated during Wednesday’s meeting…

Marcone said Thursday he was gathering signatures for a primary which would coincide with the presidential primary scheduled for Aug. 11.

Marcone said he wasn’t surprised by Wednesday’s vote.

“I had somebody lined up to endorse me but then they backed out,” he said. “I saw the writing on the wall.”

“I’m going to be moving forward with primary petitions and we’ll see what happens from there,” Marcone said.

The loser of a primary for the race could also petition for a spot on the ballot in November. The town charter says that the two top vote-getters from different parties are elected as registrars.

Editorial: Update on Expanded Mail-In for CT and Proposals in D.C.

I am normally opposed to expanded mail-in voting in CT because of proven continuous and recent votING fraud by campaigns and insiders in CT (Which is distinct from votER fraud which for all practical purposes does not exist). Yet in this virus situation, I am in favor of no-excuse mail in voting.

Bottom line: If the state can legally do anything it would be best to leave all current systems in place and hire lots of people to do absentee processing and hope each of the 169 clerks and 338 registrars are up to the jobs of hiring, planning, training, organizing and executing (questionable at best given the years of experience with, never cured, Electoin Day Registration lines in some towns).

I am normally opposed to expanded mail-in voting in CT because of proven continuous and recent votING fraud by campaigns and insiders in CT (Which is distinct from votER fraud, which for all practical purposes does not exist).

Yet in this virus situation, I am in favor of no-excuse mail-in voting.

Recent examples of votING fraud in Connecticut: <Stamford> <Hartford> <Bridgeport>
Some other examples <East Longmeadow, MA> <Dade County, FL>

The Secretary of the State has asked Gov Lamont to sign an executive order to permit it.  However, reading between the lines: Since the Gov cannot by executive order override the Constitution, the fix proposed by Sec Merrill would likely be interpreted as an attempt to do that and an expected court challenge would likely succeed.

If they do come up with a fix that passes Constitutional muster about the only reasonable additional change could be relaxing the 48 hour deadline for the initial counting of votes. That poses risks too because recanvasses must be completed by day 8 and the Constitution requires that the results be certified by day 10.

If that is all that is done then local officials would have to plan and execute well a possible 10-15 fold increase in absentee ballots with a similar expansion in what all town clerks must  do prior to the election and registrars before and after. Counting ballots and meeting integrity requirements also involves special (slower) procedures in the age of COVID-19. Of course, we can give up on integrity requirements like two people checking each envelope inside and outside, and two people examining each ballot (I would not recommend against skipping integrity).

In D.C. there have been independent and stimulus bill sections mandating mail-in and early voting in all states. These would be devastating requirements for CT to implement and execute in such a short time-frame by August or November. All but impossible in a normal year, but much tougher in the age of COVID-19. Mail processing vendors, all but required by such proposed laws, are already saying they are all but booked  for November and have no spare capacity. Meeting those same requirements would also require massive changes, equipment and people in Connecticut, with little time for testing, planning and training. In person early voting would also be a similar huge change. All costly and risky to implement in a hurry.

Everyone points to CA, OR, and CO as shining examples. Not necessarily true. CA comes close to meeting all the requirements in these bills. To meet them CA allows 30 days for counting absentees. In the recent primary (much smaller than the general election) they extended the counting an additional 21 days. If that happens in Nov, its likely the CA electors would not be counted in the Presidential election. Hopefully they will do better.

Bottom line: If the state can legally do anything it would be best to leave all current systems in place and hire lots of people to do absentee processing and hope each of the 169 clerks and 338 registrars are up to the jobs of hiring, planning, training, organizing and executing (questionable at best given the years of experience with and never cured, disenfranchising Election Day Registration lines in some towns).

Rant Against Congress’s Plans to Rescue the Election

Both the US House and Senate have proposals to improve our elections in the age COVID-19.  They are huge and dangerous, impossible to implement in Connecticut and many other states by November.

Instead of our usual format here, I will cover them by rants I have posted as comments on Facebook over the last two days. They are just to complex and out of touch with reality to comer in a neat and organized, point by point way.

Both the US House and Senate have proposals to improve our elections in the age COVID-19.  They are huge and dangerous, impossible to implement in Connecticut and many other states by November.

Instead of our usual format here, I will cover them by rants I have posted as comments on Facebook over the last two days. They are just to complex and out of touch with reality to comment in a neat and organized, point by point way.

By my count the Senate bill has eleven significant changes to current election law, procedures, and electronic systems in Connecticut elections. I have not counted the details in the House bill, while it is similar to the Senate bill it has at least two additional very difficult to  implement requirements.

Senate Bill Page Summary <read>  Senate Bill <read> House Bill (start at page 814) <read>

Selected Recent Rants (edited):

As Denise Merrill testified, just one of these changes is too much to do by Nov especially for the biggest election of the cycle. The Election Night Reporting system took about 5 years to get right, if it is now. Motor Voter has taken two years so far, if it is right now. The Senate bill has 11 significant changes we don’t have now including online AB requests, permanent AB for all, count ABs until the day before certification, signature cure also until that date, expanded email ballot delivery for disabled and those that don’t receive it by two days before the election, no exception for a disaster without internet or phone service, expanded (ambiguous) requirements for disabled, 20 days polling place early voting, etc. The House bill adds mandatory signature match for all ABs and days 15 days of early voting that must include the day before Election Day – that is a significant addition, where  the Senate bill provides four days between early voting and election day. The bills would pay for some hardware, software and implementation but I doubt for most of those local costs. We would almost necessarily need epollbooks to integrate the early voting data. Miss one part or screw it up for one voter, the US AG or v ANY citizen can sue for injunctive relief.

I’ll add it’s not 7 months as the AB stuff must be ready in Sept and Early voting in Oct. Plus all this is developed, tested, implemented and executed under COVID-19 separation rules. Unless it passes in time that we need it for the Aug Primary.

Lets not forget this is all being done under the gun of COVID-19. And the Electoral Count Act:

The bills have provisions for ABs that took CA, WA, OR, and CO years to implement. Secretary Merrill testified to the GAE last month that just one of those provisions was too difficult and risky to implement for Nov, I agree. There are several others even more difficult. Meeting those provisions and counting ABs are compounded by precautions for COVID-19. Even in CA where they have years of experience, they have 30 days to count ABs – now they have extended that to 51 days for the recent Primary – for 2020 the Safe Harbor date to report votes for electors is Dec 14, just 41 days after the election – Ask yourself what would happen if the Supreme Court stuck with the strong precedent from 1876 and disqualified the CA electors? And on top of that  CT is starting years behind in procedures, practices, automation, and systems.

What would I recommend?

By executive order of Governor Lamont, allow no-excuse AB, allow counting to go for 9 days not 2, to delay recanvasses until after day 10 – Day 10 is the certification date which is hard baked into the Connecticut Constitution, Registrar/SOTS and Clerk task forces created to plan to get their jobs done within the necessary time constraints, with state funding to cover planning training and the large staffing and supervision challenges for municipalities, including extra overhead for COVID-19. PS: The same for protecting everyone in polling places. Printers added to essential businesses.

 

Testimony on three bills

Last Friday, provided testimony on three bills. As I said in my prepared remarks:

I oppose  S.B.365. As I testified last Friday, we humans have difficulty balancing risks and rewards. This is a case where the added risks outweigh the added convenience.

This bill, while well intended, would remove the valuable fraud detection mechanism of hand-signed absentee ballot applications.

I support  H.B.5414. The bill would have the Judiciary rather than the House or Senate rule on remedies to contested elections

The overall result of systems to adjudicate close elections, as our current system for Senator and Representative, is less trust in the system by the public and candidates.

I would support H.B.5404, IF it were Broadened and Corrected.

My written testimony contains a laundry list of issues such a Task Force should address.

I am concerned that this Task Force needs more time, a significant staff budget to handle all the issues, and also to reimburse experts to provide information, analysis, and suggestions to the committee, in order for there to be a thorough evaluation.

Last Friday, provided testimony on three bills. As I said in my prepared remarks:

(Click on the bill numbers for a link to my testimony, which contains links to each bill’s status page, which links to bill text)

I oppose  S.B.365. As I testified last Friday, we humans have difficulty balancing risks and rewards. This is a case where the added risks outweigh the added convenience.

This bill, while well intended, would remove the valuable fraud detection mechanism of hand-signed absentee ballot applications.

I support  H.B.5414. The bill would have the Judiciary rather than the House or Senate rule on remedies to contested elections

Observing all the meetings or hearings in last year’s Committee on Contested Elections and the overall result on public confidence, I strongly support this bill.

The overall result of systems to adjudicate close elections, as our current system for Senator and Representative, is less trust in the system by the public and candidates.

As I said in answer to a question: It does not need eliminate the House and Senate’s prerogative to decide to seat a member or not. I could be worded so that the courts could adjudicate election issues, leaving the House and Senate with the final review.

I would support H.B.5404, IF it were Broadened and Corrected.

First, I would support this Task Force if some significant changes were made, especially to the charge for the Task Force, and if it was appropriately funded and staffed.

This proposal is limited to one, incorrectly defined, type of Ranked Choice Voting known as Instant Runoff Voting. This proposal defines the study in a way that would be impossible to satisfy.

Secondly, My written testimony contains a laundry list of issues such a Task Force should address.

I am concerned that this Task Force needs more time, a significant staff budget to handle all the issues, and also to reimburse experts to provide information, analysis, and suggestions to the committee, in order for there to be a thorough evaluation.

Finally, The Task Force should entail several, opportunities for expert and public oral and written testimony, noticed well in advance.