Costs | CTVotersCount.org

Two days at the Voting and Elections Summit

Three simple ideas standout among the many things I learned and relearned:

When we are concerned about every cost associated with voting, small and large, compare those costs to what we spend “spreading democracy” elsewhere.
Contemplate what people spend in time and expense for the excitement of the Superbowl. Why are we not similarly engaged in Election Day, where the who wins is much more significant to our lives?
Should we be at least as concerned with protecting and auditing paper ballots, as we are with the footballs used in the semi-finals?

I always get rejuvenated with new ideas and camaraderie of a conference. For the last two days I have participated in the Voting and Elections Summit in Washington, D.C.

If you or anyone you know needs help with registering to vote or absentee voting the source of help is the U.S. Vote Foundation or the Overseas Vote Foundation.

Three simple ideas standout among the many things I learned and relearned:

When we are concerned about every cost associated with voting, small and large, compare those costs to what we spend “spreading democracy” elsewhere.
Contemplate what people spend in time and expense for the excitement of the Superbowl. Why are we not similarly engaged in Election Day, where who wins is actually much more significant to our lives?
Should we be at least as concerned with protecting and auditing paper ballots, as we are with the footballs used in the semi-finals?

Monday and Tuesday, I will be back at the Capitol considering what might be possible in the future, while wondering if we are willing to pay for a voting system worthy of the potential value of trustworthy elections, at the NIST Future of Voting Symposium II. Yes, I went to the 1st Symposium and Connecticut benefited.

Speed Up Election Results – Not so fast, with another half-baked solution

UPDATED, With two additional views. And a CORRECTION.
We half agree with the Courant and the Secretary of the State. We have supported the idea, applauded the start that the Secretary took, yet there are problems with the system as proposed, and even more problems with the some of the views and ideas in the Courant’s Editorial. Yet, one half-baked manual system does not deserve a half-baked automated one to solve the problems.

We would like to see the Secretary and the Courant Editorial Board close a polling place and get the data in via smart phone, or close absentee ballots and report via laptop. We will help time them and transparently provide the video on YouTube.

We also remind readers that the Courant is one of the newspapers that led the fight to require expensive paper legal notices instead of allowing for web based notices.

The Courant published an Editorial in today’s print edition: Speed Up Election Results , the online version dated yesterday is titled Half-Baked Reporting System Keeps Election Results A Mystery <read>

We half agree with the Courant and the Secretary of the State. We have supported the idea, applauded the start that the Secretary took, yet there are problems with the system as proposed, and even more problems with the some of the views and ideas in the Courant’s Editorial.

Yet, one half-baked manual system does not deserve a half-baked automated one to solve the problems.

We also remind readers that the Courant is one of the newspapers that led the fight to require expensive paper legal notices instead of allowing for web based notices.

We see several problems with the Courant’s expectations and the system tested last year, presumably the same system tested this year, since the Secretary of the State’s web site hosts the same training as before:

The system expects every single Moderator and Head Moderator to input all the results on election night, that is about eight hundred individuals, many in their 70’s and beyond, expected to start election day at the polls at 5:00am, working the polls until 8:00pm and then work to close the polls, close the voting machines, count some ballots by hand, secure ballots, secure materials, and report results.
In a simple Municipal Election in Glastonbury, with 26 candidates, polling place Moderators have approximately 78 numbers to input, while the Absentee Ballot Moderator would have 12 times that number to input or 936.
In Bridgeport those numbers would be 19 candidates, 57 numbers for each polling place, and 2850 for the Absentee Moderator.
In Greenwich it varies by district, in District 1 it is 55 candidates and 165 numbers for the polling place, perhaps 3600 for the Absentee Moderator.
I would challenge the Courant Editorial Board to work for 15 straight hours, service the public, managing a team of individuals that work one day a year, and within one-half hour input those numbers.
To add to the challenge, the Secretary offers input via smart phone, so the entry can be performed at the polling place, if it has cell service, saving the drive to Town Hall. By the way, Moderators keep a log of incidents during the day and that has to be typed in as well.
If you are a central count Absentee Ballot Moderator you do not have that log to put in, you are at Town Hall, so you can surely use a laptop computer, you started the day a bit later, but in addition to entering a few hundred or thousand numbers, you have to print the optical scanner tape, which can easily use up more than the whole half-hour the Courant Editorial Board expects so that they can get the results on their schedule.
That is up to thirty-four individuals in a town all doing that at the same time, hopefully few would have problems with their passwords or need other help from the town or state.

Once again, we are in favor of a fully baked solution:

Allow towns to hire competent data entry help, to arrive fresh at town hall at 8:00pm, and type in the data under the guidance and supervision of the Moderators and Head Moderator. (In one medimu -sized town where I have worked, as Absentee Moderator – I read the numbers, the Head Moderator typed them into a spreadsheet, a Registrar watched him to check his input, he printed the data and the Registrar and I checked it against my hand written records and the machine tapes – we always found a couple of things to correct in the process)
Forget the smart phones, just too slow for this much data.
Test the system in real life and set reasonable expectations for timing. Most towns should be able to get the data in by Midnight, but sometimes there will be good reasons for delays.
The goal should be reasonably accurate data the first time. That means double checking entry. Double checking any transcription and manual addition required (Try as we might, it is not possible to machine count write-ins and other special situations that require hand counting of ballots)

Here is the Editorial with our annotations in []

By Wednesday afternoon, official results for all of Tuesday’s local elections were still not up on the secretary of the state’s website.

This is crazy. [Perhaps, but lets consider what we would say about this editorial after reviewing it]

By contrast, Florida voters knew by 8 p.m. Tuesday all their local election results — because Florida state law says officials have to report them to the state a half-hour after polls close and update them every 45 minutes thereafter. [Florida has improved after 2000, but Connecticut has wisely opted not to have its electronic voting machines connected to phone lines or the Internet. Pretty much impossible to get the job done this quickly without an electronic connection from each scanner to some central location]

Also, Florida has early voting, and officials are required by law to count those votes and absentee ballots ahead of time so that they’re ready for posting as soon as polls close. [Counting Absentee Ballots ahead of time is not such a great idea, since it opens the same issues as reporting Presidential elections from East to West, in this case with days of advanced notice. We are in favor of early voting, yet it would be very expensive in Connecticut with our town by town election management. This is not a simple, nor an inexpensive change. Wisely Connecticut does not allow reporting of any absentee results until 8:00pm. We do not allow counting to start before 10:00am on election day, and we get it done on election day.]
[Consider other states, like California, which counts absentee ballots for weeks after elections. Somehow their voters and media have survived]

But residents of Hartford, West Hartford, Windsor, Waterbury, Tolland and a bunch of other towns and cities that rely on the secretary of the state’s website for election results couldn’t get them the day after the election. [We agree that is too long. It is not the reporting system. The current system, with all its faults works for most of the towns, much faster than that. Something else must be delaying those results. Sometimes it is better to get the right results than pressure overwhelmed officials (see Bridgeport 2010)]

In some towns, voters won’t know Thursday, either. [Once again, they should ask their local officials for an explanation. Apparently the Courant has not considered reporting on the actual reason for such delays, instead assuming its the reporting system]

Instead, curious townsfolk who clicked on those municipalities on the secretary of the state’s website (www.ct.gov/sots) saw the message “Check back later for ‘Official Elections Results’ as submitted by the town.”

This is maddening.

What’s Up With This?

In the digital age, election results should be made public very quickly, and in many states they are. But here in the Land of Steady Habits, we’re still reporting results in some places the way we’ve done it for decades. Our breakthrough technology is the fax machine. [Actually towns can also use email, now that the law requires towns to provide email to all registrars]

Some towns make up their own reporting forms rather than use the state’s, and have state troopers, who usually have better things to do, drive their results to Hartford. [As allowed by antiquated state law. We also note that forms do have to be customized for each town, and sometimes for each district, since there are different offices and numbers of candidates on the ballot]

As a consequence, Connecticut can’t get reliable results from some towns on election night, or even the next day. This drives the media nuts, of course, but more important, it’s a disservice to the public. Voters would like to see the official tally on who won and by how much. Is that too much to ask? [Once again the current system may delay results a few hours, but not even a day. I am sure most state troopers could get to Hartford in less than a couple hours]

Secretary of the State Denise Merrill shares our pain, agrees that the present system leaves much to be desired and believes she has a solution. She said her office has been developing a software program over the past 30 months that allows instantaneous reporting of election results — “just type in the numbers and hit send.” She said 40 towns field-tested the program in Tuesday’s election. It worked well in half of them and had some bugs that need to be worked out in the others. She hopes to have it in place in all towns by the 2014 elections. [We would like to see the Secretary and the Courant Editorial Board close a polling place, get the data in via smart phone, or close absentee ballots and report via laptop. We will help time them and transparently get it up on YouTube]

Ms. Merrill’s office made more results available more quickly this year by scanning the paper forms that were faxed in and posting them on the website. Some of these were hand-written with cross-outs (see Waterford, for example), making them barely legible — more evidence that the present system is hopelessly antiquated.

Yes, Florida Does Voting Right

Ms. Merrill would do a great public service by proposing a law similar to Florida’s, requiring quick posting of at least preliminary election results. At present towns have until 6 p.m. the following day to get their results in, and many don’t make even that expansive deadline. The chance for error is magnified as numbers are transcribed once or twice, added up, faxed in and typed into the state system. The new software does the addition and requires only one input, reducing the chance for error.

Some election processes are hard to change; some local officials like things as they are. Ms. Merrill should push ahead and drag the state into at least the 20th century. [The Courant and Ms. Merrill should set reasonable expectations of the system and election officials, based on the results of tests, and then change the law, negotiating with election officials]

To understand more details, you can listen to the training and/or view a PowerPoint presentation on the Secretary of the State’s election reporting system at her web site: <view/listen>

UPDATE: 11/10/2013. A column and op-ed in the Courant today:

First, an op-ed by Karen Cortes, a conscientious(*) registrar from Simsbury, Antiquated Systems Stall Election Results <read>

She mostly echoes our concerns, yet there are several areas where we diverge:

I do not agree that automation provides a total solution and that getting results immediately is desirable. No matter how well the collection system is automated, there is an need for checking and rechecking at the origin of hand count and write-in results in particular, time should be taken to make sure the check-in list counts match the total ballots counted. Electronic data entry checked well can save a few hours and some redundant work for the Secretary of the State as well.
Electronic data transmission from our election machines is risky and not a cure for errors. Connecticut wisely does not connect our machines to the Internet or phone system, to protect against viruses and attack.
Blindly submitting electronic results, bypasses the careful checking that the scanner was used properly and did not miss votes or double count them – that has happened in Connecticut, even over turning an election.
I would not hold out NJ as a good example. NJ uses DRE (touch screen) voting which in NJ are total uninhabitable and proven to miscount.
As for Virginia, this year they are a poster-state for blindly accepting machine results. The results from one county were blindly reported, were obviously incorrect, and may, if corrected, result in the change in a result. See <BradBlog> As for me, I will opt for taking the time for accurate date entry, and checking for reasonably accurate results in initial reports.

Also a column from Jon Lender, with views closer to our own: Computerized Vote-Tally System Tested: Merrill Gives It C+, But Local Registrar Says It Flunked <read>

* CORRECTION: Good grief! An earlier version said ‘contentious’. We regret the error. At least we have proven the need for checking and rechecking.

Well intended misstep on Connecticut’s horizon?

The Hartford Courant editorial board celebrates a step towards a mistake for which they have long advocated

There is always an easy solution to every human problem–neat,
plausible, and wrong.- H.L. Mencken

There is always an easy solution to every human problem–neat, plausible, and wrong.
– H.L. Mencken

The Hartford Courant editorial board celebrates a step towards a mistake for which they have long advocated: Registrar Reduction On Hartford Horizon, Hartford Charter Commission wisely proposes end to five-year fiasco <read>

Hartford has wasted more than $1 million in the last five years on a top-heavy registrars of voters’ office. The city has three registrars, while every other municipality in the state has two.
Under a law that apparently dates back to when the Socialist Party had a strong presence in the state, the candidates for registrar who garner the highest and second-highest number of votes win the posts. But if a major-party candidate — Democrat or Republican — is not among the top two finishers, that candidate must also be named a registrar.
In 2008, the Working Families Party candidate outpolled the Republican candidate, so both, along with the Democrat, became registrars. The cost of each party registrar, with staff, benefits, etc., approaches $250,000 a year…

Two more things must happen. The change must be approved by voters in November, and the General Assembly must make a small change in state law.

While the Editorial Board may have their heart in the right place, they may be oblivious to the demanding job of registrar and the record of human nature. They have regularly been fighting this battle since before the third party registrar was elected. We have been arguing for better solutions then and now.

There is a reason for two registrars and three. The idea is to have checks and balances. Since the Working Families Party is the real challenger in Hartford, they need a registrar to watch out for their interests and the interests of their voters. Yet, as the one of the major parties in statewide elections, the Republicans need someone watching out for their interests in Hartford as well. Not so long ago we saw that a single registrar was insufficient to protect the interests of one party. Does the Editorial Board remember or read the news in the Courant?
Replacing three uncertified registrars with one uncertified registrar, without oversight is a formula for disaster.We have argued for replacing all registrars with civil service professionals, yet not the simplistic way apparently recommend by the Editorial Board: We have recommended: Doing for election what we have done for probate: Regionalize, Professionalize, Economize. But changing one city or only a simple change allowing for a single professional to run a city’s elections is false economy. We have professional iown clerks, yet the ycan be certified and supervised. To do the job right there needs to be training and qualifications; there needs to be standards for town councils to judge potential candidates; there needs to be a career path from deputy to registrar, from smaller districts to larger ones; there must be oversight in place to see that registrars do the job as intended and are even-handed to all parties, candidates and voters. Here is the bill we proposed last year <read> for a blue ribbon commission.
There is more than one way to save money, in spite of the city and Courant’s lack creativity. As we have said before there is no state law mandating that a third registrar cost $250,000. There are plenty of registrars across the state that work part time, so can three Hartford registrars work 2/3 time and be supported by three deputies with fewer assistants in total.

We appreciate that the Editorial Board understands the value of auditing.

Another change would expand the powers and scope of the city’s internal audit commission. The commission has been remarkably busy this year rooting out waste and should have the tools it needs. The revision also enables the creation of a public campaign financing mechanism, a nice idea when the city can afford it.

If only we had effective, comprehensive, independent election audits.

Testimony on two bills – Disclosure and Early Voting

Almost all the legislators from both parties made “political hay” (that is intended as a cliche like “fox in the hen house”) out of former and future candidate for Governor, Tom Foley’s testimony on legislative ethics. He admitted authorship of questionable concepts not worded to match his intent. I can only wonder what would happen if all bills were required to identify the author? Would I have tempered my remarks on early voting, had everyone known the source of that inadequate and contradictory text? Would the result be less bills with better text?

Yesterday, the Government Administration and Elections Committee held hearings on several bills covering political ad disclosure, ending cross-endorsements, Legislative conflicts of interest, and early voting. I testified in favor of more disclosure and urged that early voting be sent back to the drawing board <Prepared Remarks> <Disclosure> <Early Voting>

Earlier in the session I complained about bills being too sketchy to testify for or against, including early voting. This time we had a longer early voting bill full of holes and, as I said in my testimony ,it “couples omissions with ambiguity”. George Cody, Registrar, New Canaan and I each found several glitches the other one of us missed.

Please defer action on early voting for a time when Connecticut is prepared to pay for it. And when there is time to develop and hear testimony on a detailed bill with guarantees of protection and voter service.

Almost all the legislators from both parties made “political hay” (that is intended as a cliche like “fox in the henhouse”) out of former and future candidate for Governor, Tom Foley’s testimony on legislative ethics. He admitted authorship of questionable concepts not worded to match his intent. I can only wonder what would happen if all bills were required to identify the author? Would I have tempered my remarks on early voting, had everyone known the source of that inadequate and contradictory text? Would the result be less bills with better text?

Conflict of interest generates knee-jerk call for election reform

As we have said before in several ways, modernization and solving election problems in Connecticut will be almost impossible to achieve within the existing system of 338+ local registrars, many of whom are very very part time. The comprehensive solution is to “Do for Elections what we have done for Probate”. Consolidation, Professionalization, and Regionalization. Not a panacea, but in our opinion a prerequisite.

Press release: Mayor Segarra & Hartford Legislators Call For Election Reform – Registrar of Voters Primary Raises Concerns <read>

This year in Hartford, there is a primary for one of the offices of Registrar of Voters. By the law the current party registrar is responsible for conducting primary elections for their own party. But that naturally creates a conflict of interest when the sitting registrar is also a candidate. This happens quite frequently in Connecticut and is not the only conflict. There can be a conflict when the registrar as a party member and usually a Town Committee member has taken a vote or a position for a particular candidate. Or as happened in Hartford in 2010, the registrar is on a slate for a Town Committee election. A registrar could also be a candidate for higher office and is often the spouse or close relative of a candidate. The list of potential conflicts is almost endless.

Shortsighted, stop gap solutions:

The two failed bills referenced in the press release are stop gaps. One would only apply to large city Town Committee elections. The other would only apply to elections for Registrar of Voters. We also do not like the idea of the Secretary of the State appointing the replacement registrar, that could create an appearance of a conflict of interest and the Secretary may not be that familiar with local individuals qualified and conflict-free to assume the duties. And in Hartford and occasionally other towns we have a third-party registrar candidate running with the sitting registrars administering the election. From the 1st bill:

That title 9 of the general statutes be amended to require (1) a registrar of voters who is a candidate in a primary or at an election, for the office of registrar of voters, to recuse himself or herself from official duties relating to such primary or election, and (2) the Secretary of the State to appoint a person to assume such duties during such period.

Every even year election, the registrars are candidates so they both would be replaced, for half of the elections! Where would 338+ qualified candidates be found? Especially if the state mandated certification of Registrars of Voters is ever materialized? Remember in most primaries and all elections there are multiple contests, it might be difficult to define fairly segregate the duties associated with one contest from the others.

A Comprehensive Solution

As we have said before in several ways, modernization and solving election problems in Connecticut will be almost impossible to achieve within the existing system of 338+ local registrars, many of whom are very very part time. The comprehensive solution is to “Do for Elections what we have done for Probate“. Consolidation, Professionalization, and Regionalization. Not a panacea, but in our opinion a prerequisite.

Enthusiastic support for the Secretary’s Performance Task Force Recommendations

Given the many members, the brief meetings, and the lack of representation of all interests, we were skeptical when the Task Force was convened. To our delight, we find that we can offer endorsement of each of the twenty-one recommendations in the report.

There is a lot to do in all the recommendations. It will take time, money, and deliberate work with everyone at the table. Our hope is that each of the recommendations will be thoroughly explored, evaluated, and acted upon, that none get overlooked.

Last summer and fall, the Secretary of the State convened an Elections Performance Task Force to look at elections and what might be done to improve them in the State of Connecticut. Details, presentations, and videos of the Task Force meetings are available at the Secretary’s web site <here> The Secretary issued a final report and recommendations <here>

We strongly endorse those recommendations in bold below [our comments in brackets]

Identify measures that will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the voting process.

1. The Secretary recommends an amendment to Article 6, Section 7 of the Connecticut State Constitution similar to House Joint Resolution Number 88 of the 2011 legislative session. The amendment would allow the General Assembly to adopt more flexible laws for voting.

2. The Secretary recommends partnering with Professor Heather Gerken to develop a Connecticut Democracy Index. This would allow for benchmarking across municipalities and with other states to track trends in the election process, to measure performance and to gain valuable data that can inform decisions going forward.

3. The Secretary recommends streamlining the absentee ballot process. A working group should be formed to examine and make recommendations around ideas like creating a single absentee ballot application and linking the absentee ballot tracking system with the Centralized Voter Registration System. [Assuming such streamlining does not increase integrity risks or confidence in the process]

4. The Secretary recommends further study of how regionalism could make Connecticut’s electoral system more cost-effective and consistent. For instance, the use of a statewide online voter registration system, regional on-demand ballot printing, and regional voting centers should all be further explored. [Here we would go further to explore complete regionalizaton, “doing for elections what we have done for probate in Connecticut]

5. The Secretary recommends that the polling place for district elections be the same as for state elections. This will help eliminate voter confusion caused by having to go to different polling locations for different elections. [This would be convenient, yet if mandated, would be challenging for many towns due to different boundaries and contests]

6. The Secretary recommends exploring better ways of coordinating the printing of ballots with programming of memory cards in order to create a more efficient, reliable and cost-effective process.

7. The Secretary recommends the development of a certification process for Registrars of Voters. Additionally, standards and best practices should be developed for that office around issues such as election administration, voter registration and voter outreach. These standards and best practices may need to account for differences in small, medium and large municipalities. Finally, a mechanism for enforcement and, if necessary, the removal of a Registrar of Voters should be created. [We would especially recommend standardization and better practices for post-election audits and recanvasses, along with better manuals, including creating manuals for each pollworker position]

8. The Secretary recommends that a formal study of the cost of elections be undertaken, and that a standardized set of measures for such costs be established.[We would combine this into the Democracy Index, providing ongoing measures and comparison over time]

Maintain the security and integrity of the voting process.

9. The Secretary recommends the development of a secure online voter registration system in Connecticut. The system should be tied to other statewide databases, such as the Department of Social Services, the Department of Developmental Services, and the Department of Motor Vehicles, to allow for verification of data.

10. The Secretary recommends that the state acquire at least one high speed, high volume scanner to be utilized in the post-election auditing process. This centralization of the process will reduce the fiscal and logistical burdens on towns, as well as provide for a more accurate and secure auditing process.[We are a strong supporter of electronic auditing, done effectively and transparently. The number of scanners and their capacities should be a byproduct of an effective electronic auditing pilot, plan, cost benefit analysis, and appropriate law establishing and governing electronic audits]

11. The Secretary recommends that the post-election auditing process be amended to include all ballots that are machine-counted, including those counted centrally.[We would go farther and subject all ballots cast to selection for audit.]

12. The Secretary recommends that a greater emphasis be placed on ballot security. Ballots should be stored in a secure, locked facility. Additionally, two individuals should always be present whenever these facilities are accessed. This policy should be uniformly followed and enforced.

13. The Secretary recommends that the state join the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC), an interstate data consortium that the Pew Center on the States is currently building. This data center would allow participating states to streamline the processes for registering eligible voters; update records of existing voters; and remove duplicate and invalid records from state voter files. The Secretary stresses the need to include multiple agencies in the database, including those that offer public assistance, interact with people with disabilities, and otherwise come into contact with eligible voters who may not normally visit the Department of Motor Vehicles. Evaluate ways to integrate technology into our election system.

14. The Secretary recommends further exploring the use of new technologies in the election process through pilot programs and examination of other states’ usage. However, the cost and security of any new technologies should be carefully examined. Examples of new technologies for consideration include:

a. Electronic poll books

   b. More advanced voting systems for the voters with disabilities

    c. Online voter registration

15. The Secretary recommends immediate implementation of a statewide web-based electronic reporting system for election results.

16. The Secretary recommends the use of web-based training to standardize election staff training across the state.[We would like to see video training and manuals having a pollworker focus, designed by professional technical writers]

Find ways to increase voter participation, particularly among minorities, young people, people with disabilities, and military and overseas voters.

17. The Secretary recommends Election Day registration in Connecticut and any necessary adjustments to the voter file system to ensure accuracy. Election Day registration has increased voter participation in states where it has been enacted.

18. The Secretary recommends an effort to increase voter participation in Connecticut, with a particular focus on youth, minorities, people with disabilities, and military and overseas voters.

a. Early voting bears further study as a possible mechanism for reaching minority voters. [We are skeptical that early voting has a particular focus on any group of voters]

   b. Since the electorate is becoming more mobile, voter registrations should be mobile as well.
   c. Connecticut’s curbside voting program should be better advertised to voters with disabilities, all polling places should be easily handicapped accessible, and poll workers at all locations should be properly trained on utilizing the IVS vote by phone system. A viable, better alternative to the IVS system should also be sought.

   d. The military and overseas voting process should be amended to allow for the facsimile transmittal of completed absentee ballot applications. The original application would then be returned in the envelope along with the completed absentee ballot via mail, in order for the ballot to be counted.[Fax transmission should only be required to obtain a blank ballot in situations where the voter cannot print a blank ballot]

e. The military and overseas voting process should be streamlined by the electronic transmission of printable, mailable ballots. This, along with the above recommendation, would eliminate the mailing time of transmitting completed applications and blank ballots through manual post, and would allow for more time for participation by military and overseas voters.

f. The electronic transmission of ballots to military and overseas voters should be further streamlined through the use of the Centralized Voter Registration System.[Having the system aid the overseas voter in downloading their correct blank ballot]

19. The Secretary recommends that existing voter registration provisions included in legislation such as the National Voter Registration Act be fully enforced. The Secretary further recommends that Connecticut’s Department of Corrections be designated as an official voter registration agency.

20. The Secretary recommends a concerted effort to educate the public and the incarcerated population about the voting rights of those detained pre-sentencing and the restoration of voting rights to felons. The Secretary further recommends that the restoration of voting rights be extended to include parolees, as is the case in over a dozen states.

21. The Secretary recommends that Election Day be declared a holiday, as it is in many countries, and/or that elections include in-person voting on a weekend day. This would grant citizens more time to vote and would allow for the use of students and persons with the day off as poll workers.

We note several caveats:

Our endorsement of proposals is conditional. Conditional on the details of any proposed implementation or law. For instance, although we support Election Day Registration, we do not support the current bill before the Legislature which would call for Election Day Registration, because the bill is inadequate to protect the rights of EDR voters, other voters, and could result in chaos and uncertainty.

The report is the Secretary of the State’s, not approved by or endorsed by the Task Force as a whole.

Contained in this report are the findings of the Election Performance Task Force, organized by subcommittee subject matter, with the additional category of voting technology. The Secretary utilized these findings along with feedback from members of the task force, other interested parties, and the public to shape the recommendations that are detailed at the end of this report.

While we endorse the recommendations, we do not endorse the details in the report itself:

The statistical information and conclusions do not come close to meeting rigorous standards in justifying the conclusions reached.
As noted in the report, the cost of elections information provided is questionable. We find it wildly inaccurate to include data that elections might have been conducted at costs per voter less than the cost of printing a single ballot.
We strongly disagree that there is any basis to predict that online voting will be a safe and accepted practice within ten years.

Elections Performance Task Force: Technology Fair and Doug Chapin

You can have little to no impact on your turn-out bottom line with election laws. Turnout tends to be driven by what’s on the ballot rather than when, where, or how it is available. – Doug Chapin

Elections Performance Task Force Coverage <prev>

Yesterday was the 2nd meeting of the Elections Performance Task Force. It was a technology fair along with a talk plus Q&A with Doug Chapin. <ct-n video>

The technology fair was well attended with perhaps two to three times as many people as the Task Force members. Several vendors demonstrated electronic poll books, with single vendors demonstrating on-demand printing, high speed scanners, the AutoMark for persons with disabilities, and the PCC Technology Group, Connecticut’s voter registration database vendor. I was pleased to hear about a new version of our voter registration system in use in four towns that should provide a solution to past performance problems. It also has a capability for updating election results from polling places on election night via iPad or SmartPhone – hopefully that capability will be implemented by the State to provide more detailed election results, downloadable by the public, as we have been calling for. Also we noted that a pilot test of one vendor’s electronic poll book system will be conducted in the city of Torrington.

Doug Chapin, Director of the Program for Excellence in Election Administration, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, provided insights to the Task Force covering issues related to technology and election administration, followed by a Q&A. His talk centered on the value and price of changing election administration, technology, and election laws. Some of his main points to the Task Force:

Extensive data is needed to determine the value of, and direction of election administration changes.
In this era of tight budgets, assume you will not get increases for election administration.
Measuring Return On Investment (ROI) is important. Understand both the value and cost of changes.
A trend in the near term is attention on voter registration, including accuracy and online registration. Most states that do online registration accomplish it in cooperation with another state agency, such as motor vehicles.
Early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, and voting centers are strong trends. They can provide voter convenience. They can save money or add to costs. Data does not support significant changes in participation.
Once you start early voting, taking it away can have an impact, once people are accustomed to it. (As taking away local polling place voting may also have a similar impact)
Survey voters to determine their levels of satisfaction and confidence in the process.
Do not expect increases in participation based on changes or reforms in election administration. Satisfaction and convenience can be increased but not participation.

Chapin did not cover integrity, security, and the potential for errors and fraud. I found his remarks on the limits of election administration to effect participation particularly valuable. Certainly election administration can impact participation, yet likely only marginally. More data is needed to assess the value of early voting, voting centers, and election day registration to support his contention in each case. Surveying voters is useful to improve convenience and service, yet has its limitations when it comes to confidence in our elections. In the near term we will have more to say on the relationship between integrity and confidence, along with why we need both for democracy to flourish <see here>.

You can have little to no impact on your turn-out bottom line with election laws. Turnout tends to be driven by what’s on the ballot rather than when, where, or how it is available. – Doug Chapin

I was particularly interested in the demonstrations of electronic poll books and their potential in Connecticut. To me, they represent a huge step forward in accuracy, providing value to voters, poll workers, election officials, and campaigns. However, I do not see significant savings to match the investment, maintenance, and operational costs. There are some savings, especially in the phone intensive coordination of registration transfers between polling places, involving multiple phone calls between headquarters and polling places. It will be interesting if the Torrington pilot demonstrates savings such that towns will be willing to foot the bill for the local hardware and software, while offering to pay their share to the state for interfacing our voter registration system to electronic poll books – I doubt it. Overall, I would favor a solid plan for electronic poll books, yet justified as a moderate cost investment based on the value of accuracy and convenience.

We do need better equipment, accommodations, and access for persons with disabilities – much better than our current costly, problematic, inconvenient IVS system. That deserves its own Task Force with election officials and representatives of persons with disabilities, along with extensive testing and cost benefit analysis.

The issue of ballots, ordering, costs, and on demand printing is complex. The Secretary mentioned that we do not have a good handle on ballot printing costs today. Costs vary from town to town and are based on the size and pages of ballots required. It is also based on the number of ballot styles and voters per ballot style. On-demand printing provides another option, yet the devil is in the details. How would on-demand be deployed? How many printers? Costs for programming ballot styles? Transportation costs, presuming printers are not in each polling place? Contingency plans for power failures, traffic accidents etc. The only valid analysis would be to compare complete proposed systems comparing all costs and benefits. Our estimate is that there is a potential to save a little, provide additional value, yet also a potential to spend a lot with little benefit. We should proceed with caution and skepticism.

The next meeting is scheduled for September 19th, 1:00pm – 3:00pm. The Task Force will hear from one of its members, Heather Gerken, Yale University School of Law.

Update: For another take, read this CTNewsJunkie.org article. Best of all watch the video yourself: <ct-n video>

EVT/WOTE: Design a complete voting system, then ask vendors to satisfy needs.

Editor’s Note: August 8th and 9th, we attended the EVT/WOTE (Electronic Voting Technology / Workshop On Trustworthy Elections) in San Francisco. Over time, we are highlighting several papers and talks from the conference.

Monday’s keynote by Dana Debeauvoir, County Clerk, Travis County, Texas, was a call to design a new voting system to meet the needs of voters, election officials, and integrity advocates, then provide the specifications to vendors to compete to satisfy those needs. Debeauvoir pointed out that HAVA worked the opposite way: Officials with little notice, and little computer expertise were forced to comply with HAVA on short notice. They had to choose from what was made available by vendors.

Debeauvoir presented a possible draft design for a complete system, to start the conversation.
Keynote talk: <.pdf> <video> Full diagram with notes: <diagram>

This is just one draft on one possible design

Debeauvoir emphasized that this is just one start at a design. It provides thoughtful ideas that highlight the benefits and challenges in designing, building, and implementing a comprehensive design. It would take a lot of cool heads, research, contemplation, and redesign to get the job done well.

Perhaps most intriguing and controversial is the idea of a ballot marking device for all in-person voters. There are several advantages: The elimination of incomplete in-person votes; write-in accuracy for in-person votes; perhaps easily integrated to serve those with disabilities; savings in paper. There are potential disadvantages: Requires a backup plan (paper ballots available?) in case of power failures, software errors, equipment failures etc. – a backup plan may or may not offset savings. Would the value of more accurate votes be worth the purchase, maintenance, programming, testing, and operational costs?

A good design would likely be a system with components that integrate, yet are not all required, or can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The Debeauvoir draft would work fine without the ballot marking device, ballot marking devices only in voting centers, or ballot marking devices optional in polling places intended mainly for use by persons with disabilities.

The value of careful design and planning with everyone at the table:

The way to waste time and money, while creating more problems than those solved is to go forward without a comprehensive review, without a comprehensive design, grabbing at solutions without looking at the big picture. This can continue through time, retrofitting one solution after another onto an inadequate system solving one problem while ignoring other problems and creating unintended consequences.

Sometimes buying add-on or standalone systems works and sometimes it does not. It usually depends on the level of integration and implementation costs, for example:

Relatively easy: It would seem relatively easy for Connecticut to use independent scanners to assist in post-election audits. Such a systems do not require integration with our current optical scanners. We would need a moderate number of scanners, easily updated software, and off the shelf equipment.
Extremely costly and difficult: If we were to purchase ballot marking devices as described in Debeauvoir draft design, without acquiring new scanners, it would be very complex, far from optimum, and severely limit options by requiring ballots that would work with our existing optical scanners. Considering the expense we would be stuck with the system for a long time, or huge sunk costs for a short term gain.
In the middle: It we were to purchase electronic check-off (poll books) devices, they should communicate effectively with a new or redesigned central voter registration system. They would not need to integrate with our existing scanners. We would need several per polling place, yet considerably less than the number of ballot marking devices.

The solution is taking time and including everyone at the table in some way: Election officials, voters, technologists, integrity advocates, and vendors. Taking time to consider what could work and what might not, taking in the perspective of the variety of needs across Connecticut and the experience of jurisdictions across the country.

At some point in the future we will need to replace our optical scanners. Assuming that is in the five to ten year timeframe, this would be a good time to participate in understanding and contributing to an integrated design. The alternative is scrambling later, risking expensive, less than optimum solutions.

A pleasantly surprising answer

In the Q&A after the talk, I suggested the audit portion of the design needed transparency, so that the public could have confidence in the result. The the whole system should take transparency into account.

I was pleasantly surprised by Debeauvoir’s’ answer. She agreed that transparency is important. It was overlooked in the diagram as they assume and provide for transparency in their operations.

Letter: Feedback after first meeting of the Election Performance Task Force

Having reviewed the video, minutes, and the proposed items to be addressed by the task force, we offer the attached general and specific comments and suggestions in a constructive spirit, to forward your efforts to achieve the democratic goals that we all hold dear.

Elections Performance Task Force Coverage <next> <prev>

Today we provide our initial feedback to Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill’s Election Process Task Force with a cover letter and several pages of suggestions. <read>

As we said in the cover letter:

Having reviewed the video, minutes, and the proposed items to be addressed by the task force, we offer the attached general and specific comments and suggestions in a constructive spirit, to forward your efforts to achieve the democratic goals that we all hold dear.

We especially applaud the open and transparent publication of announcements and information on the Secretary of the State’s web site…

CTVotersCount intends to comment further as the Task Force and our research progress. We invite the Task Force and individual members to request further details, clarifications, or to provide criticism of our suggestions at any time.

Information, video replays, transcripts, agenda’s, and the schedule of meetings can be found at the Secretary of the State’s web site <here>

Election Performance Task Force

The Election Performance Task Force has been convened by the Secretary of the State to review and evaluate our election system in order to ensure that elections in Connecticut are fair, accountable, efficient, cost-effective, and work to encourage broad-based voter participation.

We will:

– Examine Connecticut’s current electoral system. What is working well? What are its weak points?

– Identify measures that will increase efficiency and effectiveness of the voting process while maintaining its security and integrity.

– Provide future direction for our electoral process: given demographic and other trends, what should our system look like in five years? In ten years?

– Evaluate ways to integrate technology into our election systems. What is in use elsewhere? What offers the greatest value-added to election administrators? To voters’ experience?

– Find ways to increase voter participation among ethnic minority groups and young people. Are there policies in place elsewhere that are working to achieve this goal?

The public is encouraged to submit feedback and ideas to the task force via email to electionperformancetaskforce@ct.gov.

Update: In an interview with the Examiner, after the 1st Task Force meeting, the Secretary described her goals for the Task Force, her concerns with the operation of the current system, and the difficulty of changing it when the weaknesses are not apparent: <read>

Examiner: What will you be doing between now and the next General Assembly session?

Between now and January

Denise: I’ve already launched two task forces. One is on election performance. I want to follow up on some of the problems we identified. We’ve taken some steps to standardize things but I think there’s a lot more we could do. We met this morning and we’re going to look at new technologies in voting, early voting, online voting, online voter registration, and all these kinds of things that would be improvements to our system. That will probably continue for about six months and we’ll probably have some legislative initiatives next session on that. And the other group I’ve convened is called the “Civics Health Index.” I’m very interested in what I’m calling a crisis in civic engagement. I think a lot of people are very concerned about the state of our civic institutions of all kinds. Where are the next generation of voters going to come from? So how do we get young people involved? How do we keep our democracy healthy? A very interesting group has convened around this issue. They will issue a report and have some recommendations on some action to take. We’ve got about 40 people on this group. We’ve gotten some terrific feedback. We’ve really tapped in to something people are very concerned about. The power of politics, the lack of voter participation and civic engagement of all kinds is really bothering people so I hope we can start a really positive conversation on that.

…

Examiner: Do you think that your predecessor [former Connecticut Secretary of the State and now U.S. Senate candidate Sue Bysiewicz]—some of these changes might have been made in times past—do you think you took over an office that was in good shape as far as the elections process?

Denise: I think that elections are a funny area of the law. When everything is going right nobody notices it at all. Its only when things go wrong that it gets attention and I’m not sure anybody could have anticipated this. I’m not sure, given how much trouble I’ve had even, getting some of this through the legislature, imagine trying that if there hasn’t been a problem. I’m not sure if anyone would have listened. It’s difficult. Local registrars and local officials jealously guard their powers and this was not easy to make them understand. I would like to see us reform our entire election system, frankly. I don’t think there’s enough accountability in the system. And I think some of those weaknesses showed.

Update: 09/14/2011: Today our report was sent from the Secretary of the State’s Office to the Taskforce members.

Update: Greenwich Audit: Is it worth $1200 $480?

Greenwich Time article: Greenwich picked – yet again – to audit primary results. Greenwich registrars and Secretary of the State debate value of audit and random selection of Greenwich.

Plus – Registrar and we agree: Audit Absentee Ballots Too!

8/20/2010: Greenwich Time article Greenwich picked – yet again – to audit primary results <read>. Greenwich registrars and Secretary of the State debate value of audit and random selection of Greenwich.

We note that Greenwich has about 24 voting districts. Everyone should expect that on a statewide 10% (or 5%) random selection audit, any city with that many districts will almost always have at least one district selected for audit.
In other states with audits, each county must audit a minimum number of districts and many of those counties are smaller than Greenwich in districts, population, and resources.
Contrary to the article, no candidate loses or picks up votes in Connecticut post-election audits. No matter how inaccurate the machine or human count, candidates would have to bring the matter to court and presumably ask for a recount to change the results in any way.
Looking at the web site for Greenwich we find that “They are also responsible for hiring and training over 200 official poll workers as well as maintaining all voting equipment used for the election.” Which at $140 per poll worker would come out to $28,000. Actually we expect they pay lots more than that for the election, since the audit will certainly involve much less than a half a days work, compared to the 17 hour election day and training. Running an election, maintaining the equipment, printing ballots and the ongoing costs of voter registration and the registrars office would seem to dwarf the $1,200.
Even so, we are sympathetic to Greenwich and other municipalities. We are in favor of the state paying the cost of audits as the towns selected perform the work for every voter’s benefit.
Finally, those familiar with our Ten Myths In the Nutmeg State would understand that we do not find the Connecticut post-election audits all that stringent. those familiar with statistics would understand also that it is not the percentage of the districts selected, but the total number of districts counted and number and size of loopholes that determine the power of an audit.

Greenwich picked – yet again – to audit primary results
Neil Vigdor, Staff Writer
Published: 09:53 p.m., Thursday, August 19, 2010

Greenwich’s election officials, have once again received marching orders from the state that they must perform an audit of last week’s primary results from Riverside School.

Six of the seven times since the state started mandating audits three years ago, the town has been picked for a recount, irking its two registrars of voters.

“We’ve been chosen every time,” said Sharon Vecchiolla, the town’s Democratic registrar. “We could do without it.”

Out of a total of 722 voting precincts throughout Connecticut, 73 were randomly selected by the secretary of the state’s office for an audit, which must be conducted between Aug. 25 and Sept. 15. “I was stunned Stamford didn’t get an audit,” Fred DeCaro III, the town’s Republican registrar.

The audit will take place at 9:30 a.m. Aug. 25 in the Town Hall Meeting Room, with eight paid poll workers hand-counting the ballots cast for lieutenant governor in last week’s Republican primary won by Mark Boughton over Lisa Wilson-Foley and the Democratic primary won by Nancy Wyman over Mary Glassman. Greenwich had 12 poll locations for the primary.

Under Connecticut law, election results from 10 percent of all voting precincts in the state must be audited after elections, a mandate that was put in place in three years ago when mechanical lever machines were replaced with electronic scanners. The fax-like machines read blackened ovals on paper ballots that resemble standardized test answer sheets.

“I think we wouldn’t mind if it was dropped to 5 percent of polling places instead of 10,” DeCaro said.

Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz defended the audit mechanism, saying that the threshold of 10 percent is the most stringent in the nation.

“I think it is a good check and important for voter confidence in our election system,” Bysiewicz said. “I think a high threshold of 10 percent is appropriate because that’s what the University of Connecticut’s computer science department recommended as a threshold that would ferret out fraud or a computer breach.”

The state not only relies on UConn for guidance on audit sample sizes, it sends the results there for a post-mortem and uses the university to test the memory cards in voting machines before elections.

Bysiewicz said that the electronic voting machines have a near 100 percent accuracy rate since they were introduced, except for isolated instances of human error by those casting ballots.

“It means not only that our votes are secure, but that our votes are counted properly,” Bysiewicz said.

A bingo barrel was filled with the names of all 722 polling places, with a representative from the League of Women Voters of Connecticut randomly drawing individual precincts one-by-one to be audited, according to Bysiewicz.

“There are many cities of good size that had more than one precinct and there are towns that had six,” Bysiewicz said. “Sometimes towns manage not to get chosen. The idea is over the course of time, every town has one or more precincts chosen.”

Bysiewicz noted that the city of New Britain once had nine polling places chosen all at once.

A total of 319 ballots were cast at Riverside School in the GOP primary for lieutenant governor, compared to 193 in the Democratic primary.

The cost of the audit to taxpayers was estimated at $1,200 by DeCaro, who said each person doing the hand counts will be paid $140.

After the November 2008 election was audited, John McCain picked up eight votes on Barack Obama in town, while Christopher Shays picked up 14 votes on Jim Himes for Congress. It was a moot point for McCain and Shays, however, who both lost their races.

No irregularities were discovered during the other previous audits done by the town, which occurred after the November 2007 municipal election, the February 2008 presidential primaries, the August 2008 Democratic congressional primary and the September 2009 Democratic tax collector primary.

Greenwich was not selected for an audit after last November’s municipal elections, while two Stamford precincts were.

Despite the hassle of conducting frequent audits, DeCaro said it was much better than the alternative of no checks and balances.

“I wouldn’t be in favor of eliminating the audits entirely,” DeCaro sad[sic].

Update: 9/26/2010 Audit actually took an hour and counters paid $60.00 each, not $140.00; Greenwich Time article <read>

Eight paid poll workers spent less than an hour hand-counting the ballots…The eight poll workers were paid $60 each to do the hand count, [$480.00 assuming the registrars are salaried]

And another Greenwich Time article where we completely agree the registrar: Greenwich registrar recommends audit of absentee ballots <read>

If the state is going to make cities and towns go to the trouble of auditing election results, Republican Registrar of Voters Fred DeCaro III said it should require absentee ballots to be included in hand counts.

Out of the 24,996 votes cast in the Aug. 10 primary in Greenwich, 2,330, or just under 10 percent, were done by absentee ballot, according to the registrars of voters.

All absentee ballots are counted by poll workers at Town Hall, not in the individual precincts where the voters live that are subject to state-mandated audits.

“Why not include absentee ballots?” DeCaro said Wednesday following an audit of the lieutenant governor primary results from Riverside School.

See my comments on both articles at the Greenwich Time site.