Category: CT

Sparks Fly Over Threat To Cut Registrars’ Hours In Half

In the proposed 2009-10 operating budget, Karen Doyle Lyons and Stuart Wells, the Republican and Democratic registrars of voters, respectively, are facing having their pay cut from $46,800 to $23,800.

The Stamford Advocate has the story <read>

The city’s registrars of voters, in a pitch to the city’s Board of Estimate and Taxation on Monday evening, made a plea that their full-time jobs escape the budget axe.

In the proposed 2009-10 operating budget, Karen Doyle Lyons and Stuart Wells, the Republican and Democratic registrars of voters, respectively, are facing having their pay cut from $46,800 to $23,800.

Both argued there is more than enough work in the registrars’ office.

“We simply need three full-time people to do this stuff,” Wells said while outlining the registrars’ office year-round workload, including elections…

“I urge caution in precipitous staffing changes that may render it very difficult for Norwalk to meet its obligations under Connecticut law and expose you to greater costs in the event of non-compliance of fines,” Deputy Secretary of the State Lesley D. Mara wrote…

An irritated Mayor Richard Moccia responded the letter was “an implied threat” and criticized Mara for involving herself in the city’s budget process after he learned from Doyle Lyons and Wells that the state’s election-related technology will occasionally break down.

We are on the side of the registrars and agree with Deputy Mara.   Their salary is hardly excessive at $46,800 for full time, while a total of three full time registrars and deputies seems reasonable for a town of Norwalk’s size, with about 37,000 votes for President in November.

If we want to talk excessive, look at Hartford!  Hartford had about 34,000 voters for President in November and  now has three full time registrars at $80,000 each.  Just two at $80,000 is excessive especially considering that each registrar (including the third) has a full time deputy.

(As we have pointed out before, we are pleased that Hartford has a third registrar and dissapointed that Hartford cannot right-size the hours and staff in the Registrars’ Office to fit the job)

CTVotersCount Testimony To The GAE Committee

Update: We provide Testimony Response & Clarification

The primary issues needing your attention are the post-election audits, ballot chain-of-custody, and the reporting of election results…As you consider the current audit laws and other bills before the committee effecting voting integrity and security, we encourage you to seek the best advice of legal experts, computer experts, security experts, and the experience of other states…What often is an attractive idea, also often has risky unintended consequences as well…

We want every citizen’s vote to be counted!
To be counted accurately!
And to be counted only once!

Update: 3/09/2009, comments on Secretary of The State’s Testimony <read>

Update: 2/24/2009, we provide Testimony Response & Clarification <read>

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

The Government Administration and Elections Committee (GAE) held a public hearing on several elections bills on February 18, 2009.  CTVotersCount testified in favor of HB-6441 to improve the integrity of elections, while cautioning the committee about the voting integrity risks of several other bills.  The full testimony contains 17 pages of the most pertinent exhibits and references to additional supporting details <full testimony>

Update: Most of the testimony from yesterday is online <here>. Several citizens supported HR-6441 and the problems it addresses.  Others addressed concerns with the costs, effort, and details of the bill.  I am preparing a detailed response to some of the concerns raised including some suggested revised text for the bill.

Summary of my Testimony:

Chairs and members of the Committee, my name is Luther Weeks. I am the Executive Director of Connecticut Voters Count and the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition. Today I am representing Connecticut Voters Count. My testimony does not necessarily represent the views of the Coalition or its other members.

I am a Certified Moderator and have personally observed eighteen (18) post-election audits in municipalities across the state. I am also a retired computer scientist and software engineer involved in voting integrity since 2004.

I am here again to ask that you improve the election laws to provide real confidence to the voters of Connecticut. The primary issues needing your attention are the post-election audits, ballot chain-of-custody, and the reporting of election results.

Currently we have a weak chain-of-custody for ballots, dependent on unenforceable procedures that are often violated. We need stronger, enforceable protection for the ultimate record of our votes.

The election results posted on the Secretary of the State’s web site are inaccurate, difficult to check, and provide no confidence that critical results are correctly certified. These results are accumulated by an error prone three step process of transcription and addition, from polling place, to town hall, to the Secretary of the State’s Office. Advocates from across the state have found obvious errors almost everywhere they have looked.

Based on five public hearings last year and on the Coalition reports of four post-election audits, we continue to conclude that the audits as performed are inaccurate, unreliable, and ineffective. Fortunately, we can make the audits much more effective, without counting more ballots.

We remain committed to an Independent Audit Board, relieving the Secretary of the State, towns, and registrars of the audit work. However, in these fiscally challenging times we have also proposed text for HB-6441 which would make significant improvements without significant fiscal impact.

Even though most members of the GAE are lawyers, when the committee drafted campaign finance law, you sought the advice of The Brennan Center for Justice. As you consider the current audit laws and other bills before the committee effecting voting integrity and security, we encourage you to seek the best advice of legal experts, computer experts, security experts, and the experience of other states.

We don’t claim that our proposed text is perfect. One contributor is a lawyer. I am a computer expert. Yet, we turn to the collective work and experience of many others. Attached to my testimony are references endorsed by nationally recognized groups and individuals, used for drafting HB-6441. The Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits created by a variety of experts, endorsed by the Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, Verified Voting, the American Statistical Association, CTVotersCount, TrueVoteCT and others; and a similar document from the League of Women Voters, U.S.

We urge you to seek and follow the advice of recognized subject matter experts and the experience of other states as you consider improving our voting systems. What often is an attractive idea, also often has risky unintended consequences as well.

Summary
We want every citizen’s vote to be counted!
To be counted accurately!
And to be counted only once!

Thank you.

Bills In CT, MD, WA, Risk Security Despite DoD Concerns

Despite the concerns of computer technologists, legislatures in three states are considering military voting via internet, fax, and email. In 2004 the Department of Defense expressed concerns with the security of voting via internet or email, and that all three methods, internet, email, or fax put in question the secret ballot.

Risking voting integrity and the secret ballot for our troops, disenfranchises us all.
Update: Ignoring Science In WA, OpEdNews Article By Ellen Theisen

Despite the concerns of computer technologists, legislatures in three states are considering military voting via internet, fax, and email.  In 2004 the Department of Defense expressed concerns with the security of voting via internet or email, and that all three methods, internet, email, or fax put in question the secret ballot.

Risking voting integrity and the secret ballot for our troops, disenfranchises us all.

Bills: CT, MD, WA

Computer Technologists’ Statement On Internet Voting

The internet has the potential to transform democracy in many ways, but permitting it to be used for public elections without assurance that the results are verifiably accurate is an extraordinary and unnecessary risk to democracy.

Excellent testimony in WA covering DoD etc:  <Ellen Theisen> <John Gideon>

Even though reports from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), and dozens of computer security experts strongly and unanimously warn of insurmountable threats to the privacy and security of ballots cast over the Internet, the Washington State legislature is proposing â and fast-tracking  a bill to allow Internet voting for its military and overseas voters (S.B.5522 and its identical companion H.B.1624).

Even though the U.S. Department of Defense cancelled its Internet voting project (SERVE) in 2004 citing security concerns, and even though the DoD has still been unable to establish the secure and private Internet voting demonstration project that Congress mandated in 2002, the Washington State legislature is seriously considering a bill that would authorize the Washington Secretary of State to create an Internet voting scheme and declare it secure and private – without any oversight or review by the legislature or the people.

BradBlog: Military and Overseas Voters as Internet Voting Guinea Pigs

Update: Ignoring Science In WA, OpEdNews Article By Ellen Theisen <read>

Clearly our SoS office has done no research into the matter. In fact, Mr. Handy said as much. They don’t want to waste time researching it if the legislature doesn’t authorize using it. So they are pushing it, telling the legislature it can be made secure and private, without any evidence or research to back them up, and even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Some in the legislature appear to be trusting their word, ignorant of the fact that the SoS has done no research. And many of them are not trusting us who have done research.

Another Discrepancy In Reported Vote Totals. And Another.

SOTS Web Site: 2876 + 0 = 2876, Town Clerk: 2862 + 103 = 2965

Update: And in Old Lyme…

Update: 2/10.  And in Old Lyme, from David Bidell again:

According to a 2/10/09 telephone call I had with the Old Lyme Assistant Town Clerk (Eileen Coffee), Joe Courtney received 350 votes in Old Lyme on the Working Families Party line and 2,612 votes on the Democratic line, for a total of 2,962 votes.  The WFP votes are not reported in the printed Statement of Vote or on the SOTS website

******Original Post 2/9/2009

David Bidell has uncovered another difference: <see most recent>

SOTS Web Site:   2876 + 0 = 2876,        Town Clerk:  2862 + 103 = 2965

According to a 2/6/09 telephone call I had with the Portland Town Clerk, John Larson received 103 votes in Portland on the Working Families line and 2,862 votes on the Democratic line, for a total of 2,965 votes.  This differs from the results reported in the printed Statement of Vote and on the SOTS website

Connecticut Voter Fraud Complaint

BradBlog.com story:

EXCLUSIVE: The New Voter Fraud Complaint Filed in CT Against the GOP’s Ann Coulter

New allegations of absentee ballot fraud in ’02 and ’04, follow on her multiple voter fraud crimes in FL in ’05, for which she was never ‘cleared’, as some media have inaccurately reported..

BradBlog.com story:

EXCLUSIVE: The New Voter Fraud Complaint Filed in CT Against the GOP’s Ann Coulter

New allegations of absentee ballot fraud in ’02 and ’04, follow on her multiple voter fraud crimes in FL in ’05, for which she was never ‘cleared’, as some media have inaccurately reported..

Letters TO and FROM the Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz

Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz, mailed a detailed letter to each voter who signed CTVotersCount.org petition. We respond.

Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz, mailed a detailed letter on January 23rd, to each voter who signed the CTVotersCount.org petition.  We responded on February 2nd with a follow-up letter to Secretary Bysiewicz.

Secretary Bysiewicz letter: <Page1> <Page2>

Our response text:  <.pdf>

TO: The Honorable Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz
CTVotersCount Petition Signers

We have all received the attached letter from Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz.  We thank the Secretary of the State for taking the time to respond to us in a such thoughtful and detailed letter, addressing our petition.

There is much to applaud in the letter and in the operation of the Secretary of the State’s Office.

We applaud the openness of the Secretary of the State’s Office, their willingness to listen to citizens, their willingness to meet with advocates, and their efforts to improve the election and post-election audit process.  We especially appreciate the Office’s and Deputy Lesley Mara’s cooperation in supporting the start and ongoing efforts of the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition, specifically in letting us know the dates of audits scheduled by towns and responsive sharing of the audit reports.  Your work with UConn on voting security studies and memory card testing is truly unique and valuable.

Like the Secretary of the of the State’s Office, CTVotersCount works with several national, state, and Connecticut groups to improve voting integrity.  We appreciate Deputy Mara’s review of the “Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits” to which we contributed and endorse.

We agree to disagree whether the audits as performed are “inaccurate, unreliable, and ineffective” and that our audit law is the “strongest in the country”.

We agree “that all audit activities should occur in public”.  We note disappointment that our request at the meeting on January 16th and via email, to have the audit follow-up site visits opened to public observation and notification provided to us, was not acted upon.

We join with you, Secretary Bysiewicz, in standing for the criticality of continuing the audits.  We appreciate your support of our petition requests to perform the audits sooner, 100% memory card pre-testing, and the institution of an independent audit board.  There are many additional items that we remain committed to as listed in our petition, the Coalition recommendations, the Principles and Best Practices, and the recently released “League of Women Voters Audit Report”.

We also join with you, Secretary Bysiewicz, in recognizing that audits are a small price to pay to provide integrity and confidence to the voters of Connecticut.

Sincerely,

Luther G. Weeks
Executive Director

CC:  The Honorable M. Jodi Rell, Governor
Co-Chars and Members, Government Administration and Elections Committee

Report: CT Nov 08 Election – Large Differences From Optical Scanner Totals

We conclude, based on our observations and analysis of audit reports submitted to the Secretary of the State that the November post-election audits still do not inspire confidence…Among our greatest concerns are the discrepancies between machine counts and hand-counts reported to the Secretary of the State by several municipalities. In many cases, these discrepancies are not thoroughly and reasonably explained. We believe that the ad-hoc counting procedures used by many municipalities were not sufficient to count ballots accurately and efficiently

In some cases as many as twenty-four (24) fewer ballots were counted by hand than recorded by optical scanners. For individual candidate races, vote counts between hand counts and scanner tapes varied by as much as three-hundred-sixty-six (366) votes in one race or as much as 46% in another.

We find no reason to attribute all errors to either humans or machines.

Read the press release, full report and excerpts at CTElectionAudit.org

Summary, from the Press Release and Report:

Connecticut’s November 2008 Post-Election Audits Report
Large Differences From Optical Scanner Totals

Coalition Calls On Legislature To Act

The Coalition noted large differences between reported results by electronic voting equipment and the hand count of ballots by election officials across Connecticut. In some cases as many as twenty-four (24) fewer ballots were counted by hand than recorded by optical scanners. For individual candidate races, vote counts between hand counts and scanner tapes varied by as much as three-hundred-sixty-six (366) votes in one race or as much as 46% in another. Most officials attributed the widespread differences to the inability to count votes accurately by hand.

In this report, we conclude, based on our observations and analysis of audit reports submitted to the Secretary of the State that the November post-election audits still do not inspire confidence because of the continued lack of
• standards,
• detailed guidance for counting procedures, and
• consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit.

We also note continuing failures to follow audit and chain-of-custody procedures.

Among our greatest concerns are the discrepancies between machine counts and hand-counts reported to the Secretary of the State by several municipalities. In many cases, these discrepancies are not thoroughly and reasonably explained. We believe that the ad-hoc counting procedures used by many municipalities were not sufficient to count ballots accurately and efficiently.

Several audit supervisors attributed discrepancies between machine counts and hand counts to human limitations; other supervisors attributed these to inaccurate scanners. We find no reason to attribute all errors to either humans or machines.

Coalition spokesperson Luther Weeks noted, “Given the variation in the counting procedures used, there is no way to distinguish when officials or machines counted accurately or inaccurately. When differences are dismissed as human counting errors, it is unlikely that an audit would identify an election error or fraud should that occur.”

Cheryl Dunson, League of Women Voters of Connecticut’s Vice President of Public Issues, stated, “We have reorganized our recommendations to the Secretary of the State and the Legislature. Along with improvements to laws, and audit procedures, we recommend that an Independent Audit Board be established.”

Cheri Quickmire, Executive Director, Connecticut Common Cause said, “Gaps in ballot chain-of-custody, election accounting, and the post-election audits must be addressed to assure integrity and provide confidence to the voters of Connecticut”

Tom Swan, Executive Director, Connecticut Citizen Action Group, said “This is our fourth report showing similar weaknesses in the post-election audits. After these reports and five public hearings around the state, it is time for the Legislature to act.”

Read the press release, full report and excerpts at CTElectionAudit.org

Bysiewicz Intends To Run For Governor

“Our economy is in dire straights,” she said. “We have a desperate need for strong leadership in our state. People are looking for new leadership full of action and creative ideas full of vision.”

From the Middletown Press <read>

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz intends to file the official documents to run for governor.

Bysiewicz said she is not yet certain when she will do so, but Monday she said she has received encouragement for the idea.

“I am planning on filing papers and I haven’t filed them yet, but I will be in the near future,” Bysiewicz said.

The current economic situation calls for an influx of ideas and ways to solve problems, Bysiewicz said.

“Our economy is in dire straights,” she said. “We have a desperate need for strong leadership in our state. People are looking for new leadership full of action and creative ideas full of vision.”

Another Short Story: Courtney and Working Families Votes Uncounted

Another story of candidates and parties shorted votes. This time it is the Working Families Party and Joe Courtney.

Update 1/15: Add Sherman and Plainfield to the list

Another story of candidates and parties shorted votes.  (Previous story with links to earlier reports of inaccurate reported results)  This time it is the Working Families Party and Joe Courtney.

Update 1/15: Add Sherman and Plainfield to the list

***************Original post************************
David Bidell noticed nine cases where the Working Families Party got zero votes.

Checking today, we see that according the Secretary of the State’s website, in Colchester, the votes for representative in the 2nd district are:

Sullivan-Rep: 2474
Courtney-Dem: 5120
Deshefy=Green: 175
Courtney-WKF: 0
Vachon: 1

But Courtney and the Working Families Party should have been credited with 208 more votes!

The question in an email from David Bidell:

Dear Ms. Bray:

I saw  published election results that Joe Courtney beat Sean Sullivan
5,120-2,474 in Colchester.  Can you tell me, in addition, how many votes
were cast for Scott Deshefy (Green), and how many of Courtney’s votes
werecast on the Working Families Party line?  I am trying to assess the
impactof third-party voting in CT.

Thank you for your assistance.

The response from the Colchester Town Clerk, Nancy Bray:

Hello Mr. Bedell:
Happy to answer your questions; G. Scott Deshefy received 175 votes for
Congressman.  Joe Courtney received 208 votes under the Working Families
line.  Anything else you need, please feel free to e-mail or call me.

Update 1/15:

From David Bidell to Plainfield Registrars:

I saw  published election results that Joe Courtney beat Sean Sullivan
3,952-1,746 in Plainfield.  Can you tell me, in addition, how many votes
were cast for Scott Deshefy (Green), and how many of Courtney’s votes were
cast on the Working Families Party line?  I am trying to assess the impact
of third-party voting in CT.

From Sonia Chapman, Plainfield:

J Courtney received 280 votes from working families and S Deshefy recieved
107 votes

From David Bidell to Sherman, Assistant Town Clerk Ellen Hipp:

I saw published election results that Chris Murphy beat David Cappiello
1,026-1,024 in Sherman.  Can you tell me, in addition, how many votes
were cast for Harold Burbank (Green), Thomas Winn (Independent), and how many
of Murphy’s votes were cast on the Working Families Party line?  I am
trying to assess the impact of third-party voting in CT.

From Assistant Town Clerk Ellen Hipp:

Burbank – 16
Winn – 15
Murphy Working Parties – 48
Murphy Unknown – 24

Unknown votes are when a person votes for a candidate under 2 different
parties and only one vote is counted.

Petition Delivered: 994 Connecticut Voters Call For Action

We call for action to enhance integrity and confidence in Connecticut elections, during the 2009 legislative session.

We believe the incremental costs of post-election audits that meet the requirements of the petition are appropriate considering the key role voting plays in democracy. Yet, we recognize that less costly alternatives may need to be considered.

Today, we delivered our petition to the Governor, Secretary of the State, Government Administration and Elections Committee, and the Connecticut General Assembly <read petition>

We call for action to enhance integrity and confidence in Connecticut elections, during the 2009 legislative session.

We believe the incremental costs of post-election audits that meet the requirements of the petition are appropriate considering the key role voting plays in democracy.  Yet, we recognize that less costly alternatives may need to be considered.

Here is the complete  text of our cover letter:

The Honorable M. Jodi Rell, Governor
The Honorable Susan M. Bysiewicz, Secretary of the State
Government Administration and Elections Committee
Connecticut General Assembly                                                              January 9, 2009

Re:       Petition To Enhance Confidence In Connecticut Elections (2009)

Nine-hundred-ninety-four (994) voters of Connecticut request that laws be enacted to enhance integrity and confidence in elections as outlined in the attached petition.

Over the last year and since the petition was initiated, several relevant developments have transpired:

  • Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits has been released and endorsed by The Brennan Center for Justice, Common Cause, The American Statistical Association, and others.  These principles closely parallel the details in the petition.
  • Connecticut has completed four post-election audits.  The Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition has issued three reports indicating that the current post-election audits are inaccurate, unreliable, and ineffective.  These reports also uncovered extensive gaps in ballot chain-of-custody and frequent failures to follow procedures.
  • A series of five public hearings were conducted in 2008 by the Government Elections and Administration Committee demonstrating significant gaps in election integrity.
  • Nationally, the November 2008 election went smoothly, however, in that election and others over the year, several problems have demonstrated the risks of error and fraud in our voting systems.  Several of these errors highlight the critical need for effective post-election audits and manual recounts to assure the voters’ intent is realized.
  • In Connecticut the November 2008 election and post-election audits has once again demonstrated the need for significant improvements in our chain-of-custody and post-election audits.  In addition discrepancies between results posted online by the Secretary of the State’s Office and the actual results have highlighted the need for a more effective and transparent system for reporting and totaling votes.
  • Finally, the fiscal situation in Connecticut and the Nation has become critical.  We believe the incremental costs of post-election audits that meet the requirements of the petition are appropriate considering the key role voting plays in democracy.  Yet, we recognize that less costly alternatives may need to be considered.

CTVotersCount has prepared, with suggested text, an act that will fully meet the requirements outlined in the Principles and the petition.  We also have available alternative text with minimal fiscal impact that would significantly increase the effectiveness of post-election audits and the integrity of elections in Connecticut. We ask that you give full consideration to our concerns in the petition in the 2009 legislative session.

Also attached are the Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits, copies of original signatures on paper, and a list of all signers both paper and online.