CT Law | CTVotersCount.org

Deadlocked Committee on Contested Elections passes ball to whole House

Yesterday, the Connecticut House Committee on Contested Elections concluded its work on the contested election in Stratford. They provided two options to the House: Leave the certified winner in office or hold a re-vote. You can read more at CTMirror: House committee deadlocks on disputed Stratford election The CTMirror article includes the final report.

The crux of the issue is that after a recanvass the certified winner was ahead by 13 votes. 75 voters were given the wrong ballot, without that race. The votes counted in the pooling place district favored the loser, in fact if the 75 had voted as the rest of the district, on average the loser would have picked up 12.55 votes, thus on average, all but even odds for each candidate. The crux of the disagreement is around the issue of if that evidence brought the uncertainty of the election in question enough to justify a re-vote.

Our context is the work of Edward B. Foley, recapped in his book Ballot Battles which covers how close elections have been decided in this country starting before the Constitution. Sadly the tradition is that, with only two exceptions, whenever a close election is turned over to a body to decide, the decision is the same as you would expect had the decisions been made politically. That is the case here. This does not mean that all decisions are wrong. It is likely that about 50% are correct. In this case, it is possible that all four representatives reached their conclusions without bias. The Committee members and ultimately all members of the House will be left with the political judgment of the voters on this matter.

I have attended all of the Committee meetings and found the whole process fascinating. You might and might not. The videos are at CT-N: <Vidoes>

All the testimony is in the meetings on January 24th and 25th. There is a bombshell at the end of the meeting on the 24th, yet to appreciate it, you need to watch from the beginning. The debate between the members on the conclusions takes most of the meeting on February 1st.

Tedious three and a half hours and then a bombshell

The Committee on Contested Elections had its 1st day of testimony yesterday. Two registrars, a moderator, and a deputy registrar and then a bombshell.

The registrars spent lots of time in their testimony explaining how they emphasized in training that eight of the ten polling places had two districts and that every pack of ballots should be checked by the ballot clerks that it was in the right district. The Moderator emphasized that he trained all the ballot clerks in the morning before the polling place opened. They also highlighted that they are two of the ten trainers for the state, responsible for delivering Moderator Certification classes.

Starratt said he had never been in a polling place before that day, presumably never even voting? He was recruited two days before and had no pre-election training. That is a clear violation of state law which requires that every polling place official receive such training before every election. Even late recruits are often brought in for an hour or two of one-on-one training to fulfill that requirement.

The Committee on Contested Elections had its 1st day of testimony yesterday. Two registrars, a moderator, and a deputy registrar and then a bombshell.

This article almost captures it, but not quite: Committee hears testimony of Stratford ballot bungle<read>

The clerk who gave the man who raised the red flag the incorrect ballot—and likely handed out the others too—was a 16-year-old high school student, too young to vote herself. State law sets 16 as the minimum age to serve as an election official.

Starratt, the moderator at Bunnell on Election Day, said the teen handed out the wrong ballots. The girl was not subpoenaed to testify.
Ballot clerk Peter Rusatsky, 61, testified Friday he saw the girl “on the verge of tears” that afternoon…

Starratt, who has been a moderator since 2000, said he gave specific directions to all the clerks in a group meeting before polls opened on the morning of Election Day…

Rusatsky testified that he was the first to arrive at the polling place that morning and he received no training of any kind on Election Day or before.

“I didn’t even understand there were two separate districts,” he said. “I was just told what my job was. That’s what I did. There was zero—no instruction—to the ballot clerks to check any numbers in the corner of that ballot.

CT-N has the <video>

Election Committee Does Not Understand Election Administration

On Friday the Committee on Contested Elections met to determine who they would hear on the election contested. The election was decided by some 16 votes while some 76 voters were given the wrong ballot and thus were disenfranchised in the election. I was there. Listening to the Committee members and their lack of knowledge of election administration was painful/disappointing for me:

They did not seem to know how many moderators there are in a polling place, and if one of them was the head moderator. (Generally there is one moderator and if the town has more than one polling place, as Stratford does, there is one head moderator in headquarters that is responsible of the election and the results.)…

They did not seem to know how many moderators there are in a polling place, and if one of them was the head moderator. (Generally there is one moderator and if the town has more than one polling place, as Stratford does, there is one head moderator in headquarters that is responsible of the election and the results.)
They were to subpoena the moderator’s log notes, from the moderator. (Those notes are in the moderator’s return, filed with the town clerk.)
They just seemed confused about the whole election process. They said there was no need for testimony from the Secretary of the State’s Office. They did briefly consult a General Assembly Attorney who read a few lines from the law. They could have used some help from the Secretary’s office or even from any of the several hundred certified moderators in the state who would know all the answers they did not have.

We were not enamored with other aspects of the process:

They started by agreeing that they would mostly focus on the facts of what happened. They need to assess those facts and not rely on media reports etc., yet the likely outcome will be confirming that those 76 voters were disenfranchised. But there is a lot more to consider;
The arguments of the two sides seem important to us. The Committee seemed almost as an after thought to let the lawyers for both sides have 10 minutes each to speak.
To us, precedent and the arguments of both sides seem to be the crucial information. I would call for additional experts and witnesses on the law and precedent, perhaps chosen by those same lawyers.
It might be nice to hear from some of those voters as well.

You can read more about it from the CTPost: Committee will quiz Stratford election witnesses <read>

You can also watch the meeting at CT-N <video>

Courant Editorial Misses the Mark on At Least Three of Five Points

On Sunday the Hartford Courant lead Editorial proposed fixes to its perceived problems with Connecticut’s election system: 5 Fixes For State’s Broken Election System. Note that all the statewide races were decided by 8:00am on Wednesday morning after the election.

To the Courant’s credit, for the second time in a row, they published a letter of mine criticizing an editorial.

Proposed Fixes Could Make Problems Worse

The editorial “Five Fixes for State’s Broken Election System” misses the mark on at least three of its five proposals

On Sunday the Hartford Courant lead Editorial proposed fixes to its perceived problems with Connecticut’s election system: 5 Fixes For State’s Broken Election System <read>

We say perceived problem, since the newspaper’s concern is for quicker results to feed the Courant and other impatient media:

Connecticut is a slowpoke on election results compared to other states. This will not do. Voters need to know on election night who their new governor is. They shouldn’t have to wait till the next morning.
Here are a few ways for the state to catch up with the rest of the nation…

1. Take humans out of it… 2. Stop using pens and rulers… 3. Send in state help… 4. Appoint professionals… 5. Vote Earlier.

Note that all the statewide races were decided by 8:00am on Wednesday morning after the election.

To the Courant’s credit, for the second time in a row, they published a letter of mine criticizing an editorial. The letter is slightly modified from the one I sent after extensive fact checking by Carolyn Lumsden, Opinion Editor, and a couple of emails back and forth. It makes the same points as the original. I would only quibble with a bit of grammar. I said as much as I could in keeping the letter within the size that the Courant usually publishes.

Proposed Fixes Could Make Problems Worse

The editorial “Five Fixes for State’s Broken Election System” misses the mark on at least three of its five proposals [courant.com, Nov. 11].

It suggests that early voting would provide quicker results. Is The Courant aware that California, Colorado, Georgia and Florida all have early voting and were still counting mail-in votes on Saturday? In fact, California counts mail-in votes for weeks after each election.

The Courant proposes following Philadelphia by using memory cards to accumulate results. Philadelphia is one of the notorious areas of the country with paperless direct-recording electronic voting machine, or DRE. Using memory cards to total results in Connecticut in any reasonable time frame would entail connecting memory cards to the internet, which would risk hacking, a risk that Secretary of the State Denise Merrill has steadfastly and appropriately avoided.

There are some benefits to electronic poll books, yet there are also risks that must be mitigated. Electronic poll books have proved in some places to slow down check-ins, requiring more lines; there must be paper backup and effective contingency plans when poll books fail, as they did in a North Carolina county in 2016.

Professionalization may be part of a solution, yet any solution brings its own challenges. I would support professionalization as part of regionalization of elections, so that professionals are not appointed and funded by partisan local government. A part-time or individual professional would be insufficient to conduct professional elections in our small towns. There are real challenges, money can help, yet we need a thorough, rational top-to-bottom review that considers best practices from other states and countries.

There was also an excellent letter on Tuesday from Fred DeCaro III, Republican Registrar of Voters from Greenwich. DeCaro expands on the reasons why replacing two registrars in a town by a single town appointed official is not a good idea.

Bipartisan Registrar System Is Fairer

Every election season, The Hartford Courant likes to complain because writers don’t have the results in time to get their beauty sleep [editorial, Nov. 6, “Editorial: Governor Results Take Too Long”].

The logical leap for Courant editorialists is that we need to get rid of our system of two registrars per town, one from each of the two major parties, and replace it with “one professional nonpartisan registrar per town.”

Because things would go faster and with fewer errors if one person typed in the numbers instead of two? I suppose the news would get printed faster if The Courant didn’t use fact-checkers, too.

I’m sure Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim would love to be able to appoint his own personal registrar. And if his appointee doesn’t get him the results he wants, he can swap the registrar out. Kind of like President Trump and the head of the FBI. Eventually both will find a candidate sufficiently “nonpartisan.”

Having two individuals of different viewpoints checking each other is common sense. Financial institutions are required to have dual control. Most states have boards of elections, which are bipartisan. Having a Democratic and a Republican registrar in every municipality is Connecticut’s method of making certain that all actions with regard to an election are measured.

The fastest election results can be found in Brazil, which uses an all-electronic system with no paper ballots, electronic transmission and the added benefit of recording your fingerprints before you vote. No public watchdogs are allowed to examine the proprietary code. You vote or you pay a fee.

I’ll stick with paper ballots and wait a little longer for the results. And I’ll sleep more restfully as a result.

I also had a short, related Facebook exchange with Essie Labrot, Town Clerk of West Hartford, which clarifies my concerns with undue haste and expanded absentee balloting:

Essie Labrot As a Town Clerk, my office issued over 3,000 absentee ballots. We need to change the statutes to allow counting of them earlier than 10 am on election day. Also, streamline the application process for AB’s (including acceptance of electronic signatures). Reliance on mail system leaves ballot errors and late applications missed votes.

Luther Weeks or change the law like CA, CO, FL, GA … to allow counts to go on days or weeks after Election Day. That would also entail adjusting recancass dates.

Essie Labrot I don’t think candidates would want to wait weeks for final results..our state is much smaller than those who have all mail voting..and county based.

Luther Weeks I was not suggesting weeks. Maybe 2 days. The law already provides 48 hours for polling places, except for reporting the tape [which is supposed to be completed on election night]. There are other risks and issues with the law in starting [counting absentee ballots] before Election Day. Many states give voters time to cast in person on Election Day to override their AB. For different reasons we give them until 10:00am [on election day]. Also the dead voter rule [which requires pulling of absentee ballots for voters not alive on election day]. Lots of choices and associated issues to consider with any change!

Essie Labrot absolutely! Looking forward to seeing you at the Capitol..

One real problem in this election was the civil rights violation that is our Election Day Registration system’s 8:00 cutoff, see: <Connecticut dodges EDR bullet. How long will EDR dodge the Civil Rights bullet?>

See a problem, propose a solution you want that might make the problem worse

There were long lines for Election Day Registration (EDR) and it took a whole 10 hours to count enough votes to determine the Governor in Connecticut. Our EDR is a problem, but waiting ten hours for result is just a concern hyped up by a overly impatient press and used as a opportunity by advocates to promote early voting as a solution.

As of this time the states of California, Colorado, Florida, and Georgia are still counting votes. They all have mail-in early voting. California has a Friday deadline to receive mail-in ballots postmarked by election day and counts them for weeks after election day. As of Friday all those other states were still counting.

There real are problems and there are reasonable solutions.

An example is this article in the CTPost: Changes to Connecticut’s voting laws could streamline elections<read>

It took nearly 10 hours after the polls closed for Connecticut voters to learn who won the hard-fought race for governor, and by the time Ned Lamont was named the next governor, voters were beginning a new day.

It’s not the first time election results have been delayed — Connecticut’s cities have developed a reputation for holding up the process — but with a broader majority in the state Legislature, Secretary of the State Denise Merrill hopes changes in the state’s voting laws could be on the horizon.

Merrill plans to again propose a change to allow early voting, as well as create no-excuses absentee voting. She also plans to propose automatic registration for 16-year-olds, who could be registered when they visit the state Department of Motor Vehicles for their learners permits.

“There’s more optimism for passing early voting,” said Gabe Rosenberg, a spokesman for Merrill’s office. “I think that there’s a real hunger for early voting. So many people want to vote early, especially when they see how many people in other states do it.”

Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia allow early voting in person, which cuts down lines on Election Day, especially in highly populated cities, and helps results come in faster. A record 36 million people across the nation voted ahead of Election Day.

That last statement is blatantly untrue. As of this time the states of California, Colorado, Florida, and Georgia are still counting votes. They all have mail-in early voting. California has a Friday deadline to receive mail-in ballots postmarked by election day and counts them for weeks after election day. As of Friday all those other states were still counting.

It seems that whenever there is an apparent problem, the Connecticut response is to claim that the cure is whatever you have been proposing all along. There real are problems and there are reasonable solutions:

EDR is a problem caused by a too restrictive process unique to Connecticut. And by the Secretary of the State unilaterally declaring that persons in line at 8:00pm for EDR have no right to an opportunity to register and vote. <see our coverage and opinions>

Yes, New Haven and many towns in Connecticut should spend more on staffing polling places and EDR for these large elections.

However, New Haven should be applauded for taking the necessary time to count votes by hand that could not be counted by machine. Perhaps they should even have given their pollworkers more time to rest and resume counting, extending the time to get accurate results to maybe 24 hours.

Compare New Haven 2018 to Bridgeport in 2010 where, under pressure, they rushed hand counting and missed many votes in a somewhat comparable emergency. Those votes were counted by the CTPost and the Citizen Audit – yet were never counted or recognized by the Official system. <read>

Merrill: “likely to increase audits”

Merrill said her office will likely also increase its audits. Currently it randomly selects voting precincts to have primary results audited following elections; five percent of polling places that use optical scan machines are subject to the audit, as prescribed by Connecticut General Statutes 9-320f. Those counts are then matched against vote totals from optical scan machines.

From Westfair an extensive interview with Secretary of the State Denise Merrill on security improvements CT ramping up cybersecurity efforts ahead of election – but will it be enough? <read>

Merrill said her office will likely also increase its audits. Currently it randomly selects voting precincts to have primary results audited following elections; five percent of polling places that use optical scan machines are subject to the audit, as prescribed by Connecticut General Statutes 9-320f. Those counts are then matched against vote totals from optical scan machines.

We will applaud any substantial changes to improve the audits. There are many weaknesses in the current law and in its execution. <Citizen Audit’s latest report>

The “Real” Lawyers Only Need Apply Rule

As this CTNewsJunkie post implies, it will always be called The Bysiewicz Test <read>

Ambiguously defined in law and only slightly less ambiguously by the Connecticut Supreme Court. All we know for sure is that you have to be a lawyer in CT for at least ten years and have different experience than Susan Bysiewicz had in 2010. As I commented in on the article:

I always find it interesting that the AG and Judge of Probate are the only offices that have qualifications, as far as I know. They are both related to law. I wonder if the composition of the General Assembly makes the legislature realize how important qualifications are, in just these cases?

There remains no necessary training whatsoever to be Secretary of the State, while some of her employees, but not all, need to be lawyers to give advice to the public, would be candidates, and election officials. That could be going better, but of course, certification by itself does not preclude errors and incompetence, or as Jon Lender puts it Bungling

As this CTNewsJunkie post implies, it will always be called The Bysiewicz Test <read>

I always find it interesting that the AG and Judge of Probate are the only offices that have qualifications, as far as I know. They are both related to law. I wonder if the composition of the General Assembly makes the legislature realize how important qualifications are, in just these cases?

Why is there no requirement that the Comptroller be a CPA with 10 years in practice? How about the Treasurer being an MBA with 10 years managing significant funds? Or that the Secretary of the State has been a Registrar, Municipal Clerk, and served in election administration or as a pollworker for at least 10 elections?

There is no such requirement for Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Or perhaps there should be no qualifications for any office?

The General Assembly and Denise Merrill, agree that to be a pollworker you must be trained before every election and primary; to lead a polling place or the counting of absentee ballots you must be a Certified Moderator; there are no qualifications to be a Registrar of Voters, yet you must become a Certified Registrar to remain a Registrar and be subject to some refresher training each year.

There remains no necessary training whatsoever to be Secretary of the State, while some of her employees, but not all need to be lawyers, to give advice to the public, would be candidates, and election officials. That could be going better, but of course, certification by itself does not preclude errors and incompetence, or as Jon Lender puts it Bungling: Candidate’s Lawsuit Says Bungling By Merrill’s Office Ruined Her Chance At Primary <read>

Ex-State Rep. Vickie Orsini Nardello, D-Prospect, claims in a lawsuit that bungling by Democratic Secretary of the State Denise Merrill’s office has deprived her of running in a 16th State Senate District primary that she qualified for at a convention in May.

Nardello says two Merrill subordinates told her two different things early this month: one, that a technical problem with her primary eligibility form (she’d failed to write “16” in the “Senatorial District” space) had been “resolved” and she was “all set”; and the other that “we are unable to accept your certificate of eligibility” and it’s too late to submit one that’s filled in correctly.

Testimony to the Connecticut Cybersecurity Task Force – UPDATED

I testified in my capacity as Executive Director of the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit. I was the only member of the public providing testimony.

Why are post-election audits and paper ballots a critical component of protecting our elections? “[D}data protection involves prevention, detection, and recovery”. Cybersecurity and other measures protecting voting equipment and voting systems are primarily prevention measures and to a lesser degree detection measures. No matter how much effort we put into cybersecurity, software testing, and hardware maintenance there will always be a significant level of vulnerability.

Paper ballots, sufficient post-election audits, and recounts provide a primary means of detecting cyber, software, human, and hardware failures. They also provide a means of recovery. They provide for, so called, software independent verification of election results, resulting in justified public confidence.

Today was the 2^nd and perhaps last meeting of the Connecticut Cybersecurity Task Force, aimed at recommending items for Connecticut’s share of the $5.1 million in new Federal Funding.

I testified in my capacity as Executive Director of the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit. I was the only member of the public providing testimony. In a couple of days I will pass on the video of the event, once it becomes available. For now:
Here is the Agenda: <read> and my Testimony: <read>

I largely addressed the need for paper ballot security and post-election audits and how some of the new Federal money could be used to enhance them now and in the future.

I think I raised some awareness from my testimony and the questions members asked, yet it seems that the modest items I suggested might be deemed cost prohibitive. I spoke for six minutes and addressed questions for about 10 minutes (the emboldened portion of my written testimony), so the video will be interesting. The recommendations for spending the $5.1 million will apparently closely mimic the items listed near the end of the agenda.

Here is an excerpt of some highlights:

Enhancing post-election audits was explicitly included as an appropriate use of funds in the Federal legislation. Protection of paper ballots is a necessary component of trustworthy post-election audits. I recommend initial steps that will cost, less than one-half a million dollars and outline a more comprehensive, yet efficient plan for the long run that might best protect Connecticut elections and ultimately our democracy.

Why are post-election audits and paper ballots a critical component of protecting our elections? “[D}data protection involves prevention, detection, and recovery”. Cybersecurity and other measures protecting voting equipment and voting systems are primarily prevention measures and to a lesser degree detection measures. No matter how much effort we put into cybersecurity, software testing, and hardware maintenance there will always be a significant level of vulnerability.

Paper ballots, sufficient post-election audits, and recounts provide a primary means of detecting cyber, software, human, and hardware failures. They also provide a means of recovery. They provide for, so called, software independent verification of election results, resulting in justified public confidence. I agree with Secretary Merrill that public confidence is important. I emphasize that the goal should be justified public confidence.

For post-election audits and recounts to be trusted requires strong paper ballot security and a credible chain-of-custody. Audits must also be transparent and publicly verifiable. The independent Citizen Audit reports show our ballot security is woefully inadequate.

Connecticut currently has an insufficient post-election audit. Insufficient because it only audits 5% of polling-place cast, machine counted ballots, exempting all centrally counted absentee ballots, Election Day Registration ballots, and originally hand-counted ballots from the audit. Insufficient because many of the local counting sessions are poorly conducted, with most differences in counts attributed to human counting error and left uninvestigated – a phenomenon that is, as far as I can tell, unique to Connecticut.

Fortunately, there is a straight-forward remedy close at hand. The UConn VoTeR Center in conjunction with the Secretary’s Office have developed an independent, electronic system to rescan and recount the ballots, called the Audit Station. Unfortunately, the Audit Station has not been used in a way that meets requirements for software independence or that would satisfy most election integrity activists, leading scientists, and security experts.

The good news is that the Audit Station could easily be enhanced to satisfy most experts.My written testimony details Citizen Audit recommendations for ballot security and audits. Once again, I emphasize that audits and protected paper ballots are necessary for detection and recovery from every type of attack, breakdown, and error.

The Registrars of Voters Association asked for money for electronic pollbooks and for GEMS systems to accumulate results from memory cards, presumably somehow replacing or enhancing our new, completely air-gaped Election Night Reporting System.

Without explanation the Registrars linked those systems to improved cybersecurity.

They also asked the State to pay for new computers, newer than the XP systems many registrars use and sometimes share with other town employees.

Those suggestions were apparently ignored.

For the agenda from the 1^st meeting and a list of task force members, see this press release: <read>

***********UPDATE:

Days sooner than last time, the video is available: <View>

My testimony starts at about 45 minutes in.

In reviewing the video, I note that Secretary Merrill did express interest in using some of the Federal money for some of our recommendations and considering improving some aspects of the audits.

How Could CT Spend New Federal Election Security Money?

Connecticut will have available somewhere around $5 million to spend on election security in the new “omnibus” appropriations bill. Woefully inadequate for states that should be replacing touch-screen voting with all paper ballots. etc., for a state that already has paper ballots, a lot can be accomplished.

Denise Merrill is already thinking about how to spend it: CTMirror: Omnibus has millions to strengthen CT voting system against cyber attacks.

Secretary Merrill asked me for suggestions in a brief conversation a couple of weeks ago. At the time, off the top of my head, I suggested and we briefly discussed three things. After consideration I would suggest some more things. Security is not just cyber security and training officials. It also requires physical protection of ballots, physical protection of voting machines, and understanding the situation before determining the training needed.

Connecticut will have available somewhere around $5 million to spend on election security in the new “omnibus” appropriations bill. Woefully inadequate for states that should be replacing touch-screen voting with all paper ballots. Yet, for a state that already has paper ballots, a lot can be accomplished.

Explanatory Statement on Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018
House Appropriations Committee; Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., 3/21/2018

ELECTION REFORM PROGRAM

The bill provides $380,000,000 to the Election Assistance Commission to make payments to states for activities to improve the administration of elections for Federal office, including to enhance election technology and make election security improvements, as authorized under HAVA sections 101 [Payments to States for activities to improve administration of elections], 103 [Guaranteed minimum payment amount], and 104 [Authorization of appropriations] of the Help America Vote Act 2002 (P.L. 107-252). Consistent with the requirements of HAVA, states may use this funding to:

replace voting equipment that only records a voter’s intent electronically with equipment that utilizes a voter-verified paper record;

implement a post-election audit system that provides a high-level of confidence in the accuracy of the final vote tally;

>upgrade election-related computer systems to address cyber vulnerabilities identified through DHS or similar scans or assessments of existing election systems;

facilitate cybersecurity training for the state chief election official’s office and local election officials;

implement established cybersecurity best practices for election systems;

and fund other activities that will improve the security of elections for federal office.

Denise Merrill is already thinking about how to spend it: CTMIrror:Omnibus has millions to strengthen CT voting system against cyber attacks <read>

Connecticut Secretary of State Denise Merrill has asked the state to fund two IT positions at her agency to help strengthen protections of the state’s electoral system. Currently the state’s election system relies on an IT team that works for all state agencies.

Merrill says she wants an IT staff “with substantial knowledge of elections” to help fend off cyber threats.

The election chief’s request is pending.

The federal funds in the omnibus, which Merrill says will amount to between $3 million and $5 million for her agency, will be released within 45 days.

Merrill said she plans to use that money to buy equipment, and especially to train election personnel in the state’s 169 towns.

Secretary Merrill asked me for suggestions in a brief conversation a couple of weeks ago. At the time, off the top of my head, I suggested and we briefly discussed three things:

Strengthening Connecticut’s woefully inadequate ballot security. At a minimum setting basic standards for ballot access and minimum sealing duration in law as I suggested in legislation: <S.B.540 2017> That was indeed a minimal proposal at an estimated cost of $30,000.
Improving the Electronic Audit to satisfy reasonable integrity requirements as we have proposed in that same bill and in more detailed form to the Secreary’s Office and the UConn Voter Center. Once again this is very few thousands in enhancing some of the prototype code UConn has developed to meet those specifications along with a few thousands in developing documentation while piloting the enhanced system as the current system has been piloted over the last two November elections.
Developing the training and support system necessary to use the UConn audit system for all post-election audits – with a trained staff to support the audits deployed across state in the nine regional governments, reducing the need for UConn computer scientist support. I.e. The state has already purchased nine complete systems, that is one for each region of the state. I have suggested training election day scanner experts for the job in a system similar to the way the State now pays part-time registrars additional part-time income providing Moderator Certification classes. I would deploy teams of two trained individuals with three complete audit systems (two to use, one a spare) to each visit three regions for three days each, allowing registrars from towns selected for audit to signup for times to present the ballots for audit. At most $50,000 to setup the system and train the individuals (they could easily be trained, hands-on in one day, and perhaps assisted by a UConn expert the 1st day of actual auditing.) The cost to pay for each year, renting a van for each team, refresher training, etc. Might be $30,000 – that’s about half what the hand-count audit costs today. Certainly for cutting costs in half, towns could be expected to pay for the service after a couple years of Omnibus funding!.

After consideration I would suggest some more things. Security is not just cyber security and training officials. It also requires physical protection of ballots, physical protection of voting machines, and understanding the situation before determining the training needed. I would suggest:

An independent security audit of every one of the 169 municipalities, performed by a reputable third-party. I would assess the security of paper ballots – how sure can we be that they have not been tampered with for audits and recounts?; the security of voting machines and memory cards; the security of registrars’ office records and municipal clerk election records; the security practices surrounding receipt and processing of absentee ballots; the security practices and security of the elections network associated with the voter registration system and the municipal network in general. At a minimum assess a random sample of very small, small, medium, and large municipalities.
Based on that assessment make recommendations for the training of officials and further enhancements of all areas assessed (I suspect needs will be identified that go well beyond the $5 million.

In the long run, beyond the $5 million, the optional solution for ballot storage may be some configuration regional storage with better monitoring and safeguards that can be accomplished by 169 individual municipalities. Such rationalization would facilitate the audits and would also provide a basis for, so called. risk limiting audits.

Five pieces of testimony on six bills

On Thursday the GAE Committee held testimony on most election bills this year. (There was one last week and a couple more will be on Monday). For once, I was able to support more bills than I opposed!

Opposition and support by the Secretary of the State and Registrars was mixed. In addition to supporting and opposing various bills, I offered several suggestions for improvement. And one suggestion for radical improvement.

It would be a very instructive exercise for you to read my testimony, that from individual registrars, ROVAC (Registrars Of Voters Association, Connecticut), the Secretary of the State, and others.

The bills were:
H.B.5422 Election Day Registration for Primaries
[Supported]

H.B.5459 Wording Change to Closing Polls
[Provided extensive comments and changes, pointing out that polling-
place ballots are insufficiently protected and how to change that.]

H.J.28 and S.J.31 Constitutional Amendment Authorizing Early Voting
[Supported. This is a much safer alternative than proposed and
rejected by the voters in 2014. I suggested modifications that
would save municipalities a lot, and provide even more
hours for voters.]

S.B.410 Post-Election Audit Drawing Date and SOTS Posting of Rulings
[Supported the bill with changes.]

S.B.411 Curing a Civil Rights Violation with EDR
[Supported. For several years I have been warning of the
potential violation]

You can see all the testimony <here>

Links to the bills are at the top of my testimony on each bill.