Category: CT

Christine Stuart, CTNewsJunkie <read>

Republican Party Chairman Chris Healy sent this letter to Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz Friday afternoon asking her to delay the certification of Tuesday’s vote because he fears the results in some close races may not be accurate.

Especially in races where candidates were cross-endorsed by other party’s like the Working Families party.

Using an example from the 62nd District were 18 year incumbent Rep. Richard Ferrari, R-East Granby, was ousted by political newcomer Annie Hornish, Healy said he is concerned about “how easy it is to incorrectly double count votes for cross-endorsed candidates.”

Hornish ran as a Democrat but was also endorsed by the Working Families Party, so her name appeared twice on the ballot. In East Granby the moderator mistakenly counted the votes from the working Families Party twice. “Fortunately, this error was caught in time for the moderator to amend his return,” Healy said.

As Healy said in his letter:

The instructions on the moderator’s return state in relevant part: “1. Enter total votes in the boxes directly below each candidate’s name.” Initially in East Granby, the moderator entered the total votes received by the Democrat candidate in the box under the Democrat candidate’s name. The Working Party votes were included in this total, but the Working Party votes were also entered in the box under the Working Party candidate’s name.

Since the candidate was cross-endorsed, this error had the effect of double counting the
Working Party votes.

We agree that it is very easy to make this error and several others in accounting for votes. There are several problems and contributing factors:

• Misunderstanding the instructions.
• Transcription errors – polling place officials transcribe numbers from machine tapes and hand-count totals to the Moderator’s Return – the Head Moderator in each municipality transcribes results to combine totals for the town – the Secretary of the State’s Office transcribes totals to be added to determine results for races that cross municipal boundaries.
• Moderators do their work late at night after a seventeen or eighteen hour day.

A component of a solution we recommend would be that copies of all polling place Moderator’s Returns and tabulator tapes be faxed to the Secretary of the State’s office with their images posted on the Secretary of the State’s web. This would provide the opportunity for Mr. Healy, candidates, and concerned citizens to review results free of most transcription.

Another component of a solution we recommend would be stronger, more comprehensive post-election audits – including auditing all votes no matter how cast, no matter how counted: Machine counted, hand-counted, including absentee, military, provisional ballots etc.

We share another concern expressed by Mr. Healy in his letter:

My second concern has to do with how the “unknown” votes are assigned to a party (as opposed to a candidate). “Unknown” votes are votes that the tabulator assigns to a cross-endorsed candidate when the voter voted both for the candidate as a Democrat and, as in this case, for the candidate as a Working Families candidate. There is no direction or guidance regarding how these votes are assigned, so the moderator has the discretion to assign them to either the Democrat candidate, or the Working Families candidate. I understand that in most – if not all – cases, these votes are being assigned to the Working Families candidate. This of course has the effect of inflating the vote for the Working Families party and may mean the difference between the party being included or not included on future ballots.

While this practice has no effect on the outcome of these races, it has profound implications for future ballots. It is a practice that is simply unacceptable.

We add these concerns:

• Assignment of such votes should be decided by the legislature, not the Secretary of the State, and not by local election officials.
• If credit for votes is effectively taken away from a candidate’s party, the effect of a cross-endorsement could hurt the candidate’s party and serve as an incentive for candidates to not accept cross endorsements.
• Similarly what if a popular third party candidate was cross endorsed by a major party, would the votes then go to the major party at the expense of the third party?
• What happens if a candidate is cross endorsed by more than two parties?
• What happens if a candidate is cross endorsed by two major parties? Could this be a strategy to take credit from the other party?

West Haven News: City Hall scene of election day dispute <read>

By Abbe Smith , Special to the News

WEST HAVEN – A heated dispute erupted at City Hall early Tuesday when Democratic Registrar of Voters candidate Michelle Hufcut – running unopposed – showed up at the designated polling station in apparent disregard of a state law that prohibits candidates from being near polls.
Police were eventually called to the scene to separate Hufcut and current Democratic Registrar Charles Marino in an effort to keep the confrontation between the two from escalating.
Hufcut defeated Marino in an August primary, but doesn’t take control of the office until January. She said she came to City Hall Tuesday with the intention of shadowing Republican Registrar of Voters JoAnn Callegari during the busy presidential election.
Although she ran unopposed in Tuesday’s municipal election, Hufcut’s name was on the ballot, making her a candidate.
“The law stipulates that 75 feet from any polling station, candidates must stay away,” Marino argued.
When Marino found Hufcut in the registrar’s office early Tuesday, he asked her to leave, citing the state law. When she refused, he called police, demanding that she be arrested or removed from the building.
Hufcut defended her presence at City Hall, arguing she was merely trying to get some training from Callegari in handling a large election. She noted that she was not campaigning at City Hall, as she is running unopposed for the office.
“I was simply there to observe and help,” she said, also noting that she was in a back office and not near the actual polls, which were in the basement of City Hall. Hufcut said she spoke to Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz about her plan to shadow a registrar and that Bysiewicz approved the plan.
Adam Joseph, spokesman for the secretary of the state, said he could not confirm whether Bysiewicz approved the plan. He said Marino and Callegari contacted Deputy Secretary of the State Lesley Mara about the situation and were told that it is “inappropriate” for Hufcut to be at the polling station on Election Day.

“We felt that because today is a presidential election, it would be best if she were not in the office,” he said. Mara also informed Marino that Hufcut was not in his office at the directive of Bysiewicz.

Marino said he called police and then he and his staff walked off the job for about two hours and refused to go back to work until Hufcut left the building. He said the absence did not affect voting or vote-counting in West Haven.

Police Officer Angelo Moscato confirmed that police responded to a call at City Hall Tuesday morning. Upon arrival, officers separated Marino and Hufcut and diffused the conflict. Hufcut eventually left the building, ending the dispute.

I inquired of Lesley Mara and she kindly pointed me to the law <9-326>

It seems to be true that in the law candidates are not allowed near the polling place except to vote, election officials (that includes registrars) being an exception. Perhaps a case could be made about where Ms. Hugcut was located, not being one of those excluded places, maybe not. Presumably, Mr. Marino and his staff saw no actual danger to voting with Ms. Hugcut in the building, out of their sight, since they left.

One of those cases where “the law is an ass”, likely an understandable obscure unanticipated consequence. Ironically Mr. Moreno was able to oversee his own primary with Ms. Hugcut, have unsupervised access to the ballots before and after the election, and lead the post-election audit of that election as well, all fully legal under the law – a substantial danger to election integrity and confidence, one that we would like to see changed.

Hartford Courant: Working Families Party Candidate Makes History in Hartford <read>

Add Urania Petit’s name to the list of people who made election history Tuesday.

Petit, a social worker and Working Families Party candidate for registrar of voters in Hartford, outpolled her Republican counterpart by more than 200 votes.

With that, city voters made Petit the first third-party candidate ever elected to a registrar’s office in Connecticut, according to the secretary of the state. Hartford will soon have three registrars — a Democrat, a Republican and a Working Families.

“My goal is not to register 20,000 for the Working Families,” she said. “When I get into city hall, it’s not even about Working Families. It’s about registering people, educating people and trying to increase voter participation.”

State law says the state’s two majority parties are guaranteed a registrar in each town. It also says that the candidates for registrar with the highest and second highest number of votes win the posts.

In Hartford, traditionally an extreme one party town, this is a good result. Voters register Democratic to vote in primaries, which for all intents and purposes determine the eventual winners in city elections. Of late, The Working Families Party has fielded candidates and received minority representation status on the Council. Without questioning anyone’s honesty, it adds credibility to have a representative of the second highest vote getting party at the table, participating in, and monitoring the process.

One of the unintended consequences of Petit’s election is fiscal. Bramante said registrars now are paid $80,000 a year, their deputies get roughly $60,000 and assistants are paid about $40,000. Those salaries and benefits are all paid by the city. The adopted budget for the registrars’ office this year — which didn’t anticipate Vazquez’s victory — is about $650,000. Last year, the office began with a spending plan of roughly $760,000 and, with cost overruns, wound up spending over $1 million.

This is not Petit’s fault. This is consistent with Hartford’s reputation for bureaucratic over staffing and over paying. Another Registrar is a reason to require less staff, not more. Perhaps there should be a third deputy, but then how about two less assistants. The pay scale also seems way above the area average, as we understand it, and with three registrars perhaps they should each work 2/3 time.

“In order for people to become engaged in the process, we need to educate them about voting, and that’s why I want to be registrar,” she said…

On the registration side, though, their numbers are small. According to Bramante, the city has 36,140 registered Democrats, 2,138 Republicans, 11,398 unaffiliated voters and 78 voters that are classified as “other” — which includes Working Families voters.

More voters in Hartford would be great for Democracy. It seems obvious from the numbers that with one dominant party the voters may see little reason to vote.

Previously we disagreed with a Courant Editorial which recommended against a third party Registrar, in favor of having only one: Downsizing Newspaper Recommends Downsizing Registrars <read>

I hear and I forget.
I see and I remember.
I do and I understand. – Confucius

One of my goals this year was to obtain more hands-on experience in the election process by serving as an election official. In August I attended moderator training. I became a certified moderator which, in no way qualified me to actually be a moderator (I would describe a moderator as the czar of a polling place). Reading the manual and taking the training would never be enough for me to grasp such a job, without perhaps several years experience as a poll worker. Thanks to Judi Beaudreau, Moderator Trainer, and Registrar of Voters, Vernon, CT, I worked one of the polls in Vernon this year. I spent about half my time as a ballot clerk and about half as machine tender.
Continue reading “CT: A Long Valuable Day As An Election Official”

Update: Roundup

P.M Carpenter: The American Gauntlet of Election Day <read>.
Video example of hurdles in Philadelphia: <view>

************Original Story**************
Stamford Advocate story <read>

Karen Lyons has not been the biggest booster of Connecticut’s new centralized voter system, a database accessible to registrars statewide to help them prevent voter fraud.

Lyons, Norwalk’s Republican registrar of voters, and her Democratic counterpart defied a requirement a few years ago to participate in the system, saying it was unreliable.

But the kinks have been worked out, Lyons said.

“They’re smokin’ now,” she said.

It’s the kind of response Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, a Democrat, wants to hear.

Bysiewicz’s office and the state Information Technology Department have been working for the past few months to upgrade the system.

“We installed new routers in every town hall in the state so we would make communication faster,” Bysiewicz said. “And we expanded the capacity of the system to handle many registrars and their assistants using the system at the same time.”

Participation was mandated by the federal Help America Vote Act in response to irregularities in the 2000 presidential election.

(Note: We have offered the Secretary of the State’s Office an opportunity to comment on this post)

Secretary of the State, Susan Bysiewicz, was on “Where We Live” on WNPR this AM. She made several misstatements and misleading omissions (these are not exact quotes as we have no transcript)

Misstatement:
Bysiewicz: UConn tests the cards before they are used in the election.

Fact: UConn does pre-election testing of some cards before some elections and produces a report after the election. As far as we know none of the cards pre-election tested by UConn have been used in an election.

• In Nov 07 the tests did not cover all districts and we have no reason to believe that the cards were selected randomly – and they showed that less than half of election officials fully followed procedures.
• In the Feb 08 Presidential Primary there was no pre-election test.
• In the Aug 08 Primary single cards were shipped to UConn from the vendor, LHS, for testing and not randomly selected.
• Given this record, we cannot predict what method of testing will be used this November.

Fact: CTVotersCount.org pushed for 100% pre-election testing of memory cards by UConn under a transparent chain-of-custody and controls. The Secretary of the State and the Government Elections and Administrations Committee supported this.  However, the bill was not taken up by the Legislature and the Secretary of the State has not chosen to pursue such testing. This would cost money, but so does the campaign to educate voters in filling out ballots.

Misstatement:
Bysiewicz: LHS invented the Diebold AccuVote-OS optical scanner.

Fact: This was debunked here the last time we heard the Secretary make this misstatement in March: <read>

Omission:
Bysiewicz: Your paper ballots will be counted in the audit.

Fact: Only some paper ballots will be counted in the audit – only those counted by machine in the district – exempt are centrally counted absentee ballots, ballots hand counted in precincts etc.

Omission:
Bysiewicz: In close elections in a recount each ballot is checked by two individuals.

Fact: The Secretary did not mention that most ballots are then simply counted again by machine. See recent events in Washington D.C. to understand the practical dangers of such recounting <read>

Omission:
Bysiewicz: Our 10% audit is the toughest in the country.

Fact: The 10% is only one parameter. Our audit law has many loopholes and exemptions which make it less than adequate <read>

Fact: Actual observations of the audits have shown them to be of questionable credibility. <read>