Category: Chain of Custody

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

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.

DemocracyNow: Greg Palast – Jennifer Brenner

A full hour on voting integrity:

I especially recommend the 2nd segment with Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner.  She demonstrates that while she has her hands full in Ohio, she understands the issues and has moved aggressively to improve voting integrity and voter access.  She commissioned the Everest reports and has used them to the benefit of voters.

Greg Palast on Vote Rigging and Suppression Ahead of the 2008 Election <watch listen read>

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner on Voter Rights, Faulty Electronic Voting Machines, Voter Fraud and GOP Voter Challenges <watch Listen read>

Report: Voter Purging Process Is Shrouded in Secrecy, Prone to Error and Vulnerable to Manipulation <watch listen read>

<watch listen read the entire show>

Puma Arizona – Some Good News

Things have not been looking good in Puma Arizona. But, some good news is that the Election Integrity Commission is acting to audit ballot security. This is what is supposed to happen with an independent board — when problems are found they are investigated and not ignored or explained away: <read>

A Pima County Elections Integrity Commission will oversee an investigation that will look at all ballot bags from the 373 polling places used in the Sept. 2 primary elections.
That decision was made after a sample audit later that week showed some ballot bags were improperly sealed or did not contain all required certification materials.

Principles and Best Practices for Post-Election Audits

(Full disclosure: I contributed to, participated in reviewing, and editing this document)

Released today at a press conference in Alexandria, VA, after many months of work:

http://www.electionaudits.org/files/best%20practices%20final_0.pdf

These principles were written to guide the design of high-quality post- election audits. They were developed by an ad hoc group comprising many stakeholders, including election officials, public advocates, computer scientists, statisticians, political scientists and legislators.

Nearly all US elections today are counted using electronic voting systems. Such voting systems have produced result- changing errors through problems with hardware, software, and procedures.[1] Errors can also occur in hand counting of ballots or in the compiling of results. Even serious error can go undetected if results are not audited effectively.

No person, voting official, legislator, or expert can comprehend the whole voting and auditing process. At some point we must rely on the considered judgment of experts rather than only on individual experience. Using these principles state legislators can assess and improve current election and post-election audit laws. Using the principles and best practices election officials can improve the integrity and confidence of the post-election audit process. In turn providing integrity and confidence in our elections and democracy.

The last page of the document has the list of endorsing groups:

VerifiedVoting – Common Cause
Brennan Center For Justice – American Statistical Association
Advocate groups from MN, MI, MA, CO, FL and CT

Update:  PCWorld Coverage

Update: New Mexico Independent Coverage

Serious, Senseless, Nonsense in Palm Beach

Update: As more details come out the story keeps changing. But the problem also gets larger. The latest is that 2500 ballots may actually be missing, the results of additional races in the same election may be questionable, and good old chain-of-custody issues may be more or as much as a problem as anything electronic <read>
******
Florida just keeps on being the poster state for what is wrong with our election systems. The story(s) from Palm Beach makes it look like the three stooges are in charge. Daily Voting News has several articles and comments over the last couple of days DVN 9/2 DVM 9/3. I will cover just some of the most interesting/unbelievable reports here.

In summary as best I can piece together from the many reports:

  • Election night totals followed by a machine recount showed 3400 less ballots in the recount.
  • The main reason the 1st machine count and 2nd machine counts differ by some 3400 votes is that they were testing vote tabulation at the same time they were counting the primary and double counted some precincts.
  • To recount they ran the ballots through different scanners and found an amazing 2700 votes that the machine would not read and they counted them by hand, then the tired election officials added/subtracted etc and declared the result.
  • In a hurry to meet certification deadlines, officials signed blank certification forms without knowing that many discrepancies had been detected..
  • The official in charge of all this was the looser in the three way race. The other two candidates were separated by 18 votes and 60 votes in the original and recounts. If the original margin had been larger, we would have had no recount – no attention to this problem.

From the Palm Beach Post:

The much-vaunted paper ballot was sold as a way to make sure every vote counted.

Instead, its debut in Palm Beach County threw the election process into turmoil as officials announced Tuesday that about 3,400 ballots that were counted in last week’s election did not turn up when a recount was conducted over the weekend.

I disagree with this for two reasons:

  • It would not be a mess if the paper were actually used as intended -for a hand count of the ballots
  • Because the paper exists it is possible to recount and audit. That is occurring, so far, in a very flawed process. Without the paper all we would have is illusion.

And another from the Palm Beach Post:

Indian River County’s three-member canvassing board approved the Aug. 26 primary results on Tuesday — but those numbers are absent the more than 5,000 votes that had to be removed from the election night totals due to the ballots in 40 precincts being counted twice.

And an editorial from the same Palm Beach Post:

Supervisor of Elections Arthur Anderson, who finished last in a three-way race for reelection, is breaking in a new voting system and learning, literally, as he goes. He’ll be in charge in November, when voters pick his successor as well as the next president. Turnout could be five or six times greater than last week, which would stress a system that already seems too fragile.,,

There is no simple explanation for Palm Beach County’s confusion. Dr. Anderson’s spokeswoman warned not to expect answers before the end of the week. But those will be answers from the people who made the mistakes. While state law doesn’t authorize intervention, Dr. Anderson has to seek help, starting with Secretary of State Kurt Browning, a former Pasco County elections supervisor.

For Mr. Abramson, the county’s explanations will be too late. He’ll surely sue. That’s one way to get answers. The better way would be for Dr. Anderson to realize that the public can’t wait for a lawsuit. The general election is 62 days away. He must provide answers, and quickly.

From John Gideon’s Daily Voting News Summary 9/3:

Canvassing Board approved the primary election results. Hopefully the reader will recall that Indian River had over 5000 ballots that were counted twice because someone decided to do a test in the middle of a real election and then failed to properly remove the results in that test. The result was ballots from 40 polling sites that were counted twice. Luckily an observant poll worker realized the totals for her site were double what they should have been. She pointed out the mistake and the county found their error.

Tomorrow the board must do a state mandated audit to ensure their voting machines were correctly counting the votes. If the poll worker hadn’t been observant and if this audit were to find the problem, or any other problem that might exist with the vote count, NOTHING can/could be done because the results have already been approved by the Canvassing Board.

One has to wonder what some officials in Florida are thinking when they make stupid rules. This audit is newly mandated. Why didn’t they mandate it to happen before canvassing the election? Post election audits are great. We need them everywhere and following every election but they have to be timed in such a way as to mean something if problems are found. If they don’t have a purpose (to ensure the votes were properly counted) then they are a waste of tax money….

In Memoriam: Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones

She was the leader in moving that the 2004 vote be examined by congress.

Here she is in “Help America Vote…On Paper” (about 4min 40sec in and 8min20 sec) <video>

This whole video is also a good 18 minute primer on electronic voting issues: The risks of electronic voting, the perils of outsourcing, the advantages of optical scan, the need for optical scan audits, and the taxpayer costs.

Official Statement: Continue reading “In Memoriam: Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones”

EVT ’08 Electronic Voting Technology Workshop

Last week I attended EVT ’08, 2008 USENIX/ACCURATE Electronic Voting Technology Workship, in San Jose. <program and papers>

It was pleasing to see a UConn paper on memory card testing accepted and presented. Their work has been previously covered here. Over the next few days I will cover a couple of the other papers presented.

This year the program expanded from one day to almost two days, complementing the papers with a keynote and panels including computer scientists, election officials, and federal election officials. Missing from the panels, for the most part were activists although they did include some computer scientists and election officials that could be considered activists.

Today the panels: Continue reading “EVT ’08 Electronic Voting Technology Workshop”

Connecticut Fails Lastest Holt Standard

Hats off again to Representative Rush Holt. Once again he offers emergency legislation to protect our vote. Even this streamlined bill is unlikely to pass. We admire Representative Holt for not giving up. We encourage him to persevere until we have election integrity. Meanwhile Senator Feinstein supports a phony, star-wars expensive, delaying plan. Here in Connecticut, the law our Secretary of the State calls the “strongest” and “toughest” falls far short of the minimum Holt bill standards. <read>

The bill would authorize funding for states that conduct audits that meet basic minimum requirements, including the use of a random selection, the requirement that audits be conducted with independence, at least a 2 percent audit sample, and public observation. All ballots must be included in the audit and they must begin within 48 hours and be completed prior to certification of the result. Only about a dozen states currently conduct audits.


Random Selection: Connecticut has it but the random selection of races is not always required to be public.

Independence: In Connecticut all decisions are made by the Secretary of the State and counting is done by local officials – this completely fails independence.

All Ballots Included: In Connecticut, hand counted ballots, central count absentee ballots, and provisional ballots are excluded. In addition districts with recounts or contests are excluded.

Begin within 48 hours: By law Connecticut audits cannot begin until after 336 hours.

Panel In Fairfield – What Do You Want?

Last night I was on a panel in Fairfield with Deputy Secretary of the State Lesley Mara, Dr. Alex Shvartsman from the UConn VoTeR Center, and Michael Kozik of the Secretary of the State’s Office. The event was video taped by the sponsors. If possible I will make the video availabe here. For now, here are my opening remarks, my topic was “What Do You Want”:

Fairfield Panel

Introduction

Thanks to Jody Eiseman for creating this event and to the Fairfield Democratic Town Committee for hosting it. Thanks to everyone of you in the audience for coming tonight.

I want to thank Dr. Shvartsman, Mike Kozik, and Deputy Mara for being here tonight. A bit over three years ago I was on a panel with the previous Deputy Secretary of the State. That panel directly precipitated actions that were instrumental in the passage of the paper ballot bill in 2005 and the eventual rejection of Touch Screen (DRE) voting equipment in early 2007.

CTVotersCount is committed to voting integrity and that our democracy flourishes.

Lest we forget, democracy is dependent on the voting integrity of every district in your town; dependent on the voting integrity of every district in the state; and indeed every district in the nation.

My Topic Tonight
Continue reading “Panel In Fairfield – What Do You Want?”