CT Law

“Does your vote count?” Glastonbury MLK Conversation

By Luther Weeks on February 5, 2018

Last Wednesday evening, I was one of five speakers and a moderator at a Community Conversation held by the Glastonbury Martin Luther King Community Initiative. There were about 60 to 75 in attendance. We addressed “Does your vote count? An examination of the Issues” I addressed issues in two areas: How could you know if your vote was counted? And what I would recommend to expand democracy in Connecticut, without risking election integrity. Here are my prepared remarks:

Posted in CT, CT Law, CT Skulduggery and Errors, Electronic Vulnerability, Internet Security Issues | Leave a response

Danbury Officials did not follow the law in case diseased candidate

By Luther Weeks on November 8, 2017

The failure to remove Mr. Seabury’s name, either by having the ballots reprinted with the name of the replacement candidate, having stickers with the replacement candidate’s name placed on the ballots or, in the event no replacement has been nominated, “(C)caus[ing] blank stickers to be so affixed if the vacancy is not filled,” is in direct violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-460 (adding emphasis).

Our Opinion: We understand that diseased candidate Seabury was not elected, likely leaving the Democrats with no reason to go to court. Yet, the Registrars deserve an SEEC complaint and large fines for blatantly failing to follow the law.

Posted in CT, CT Law | Leave a response

We respond to Secretary Merrill’s testimony opposing audit transparency bill

By Luther Weeks on March 5, 2017

Last Monday we testified for S.B. 540, a bill that would increase audit transparency and public verifiability.

Later we noticed that Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill, submitted testimony opposing one provision of the bill and therefor recommending against the entire bill. Her testimony misinterpreted our bill, recommending against it based on something we did not ask for and was not part of the bill.

In response we wrote a follow-up letter to the GAE Committee.

Posted in Chain of Custody, CT Law, Electronic Vulnerability, Legislature 2017, Post-Election Audits | Leave a response

Testimony on several bills, including the National Popular Vote Compact

By Luther Weeks on February 23, 2017

Yesterday, we testified on several bills, submitting three packages of written testimony. Most of the bills were proposals for the National Popular Vote Compact. We half agree with those testifying for the Compact and half disagree. We would be in favor of a National Popular Vote with a sufficient Constitutional Amendment. We oppose the Compact. Its misfit with our presidential election laws portent chaos.

Posted in CT, CT Law, National Popular Vote | Leave a response

Lessons from the “recount”. What would have happened here?

By Luther Weeks on December 22, 2016

The Nation, hopefully, learned some lessons about our existing “recounts” after the November Election. We learned some disappointing lessons in three states. We likely would have learned similar lessons in the other states that have recounts. Remember that only about half the states have recounts at all. What might we have learned about Connecticut’s recanvasses?

We recommend three articles and comment on Connecticut’s recanvasses.

Our best guess is that Connecticut would rank close to Pennsylvania. Observed variations and poor recanvass procedures, with courts sooner or later. stopping or blocking the recanvass.

Posted in CT Law, Electronic Vulnerability, National, Recounts/Recanvasses | Leave a response

Is our election hackable or not?

By Luther Weeks on August 28, 2016

We hear from Richard Clarke, President Obama, Pam Smith, and Secretary of the State Denise Merrill. We annotate Denise Merrill’s recent press conference.

Posted in CT Law, Electronic Vulnerability, Internet Voting, Mail/Absentee Voting | Leave a response

Report: Secret Ballot At Risk

By Luther Weeks on August 22, 2016

A new report from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, articulates some of the risks of losing the the Secret Ballot: Secret Ballot At Risk: Recommendations for Protecting Democracy <Exec Summary> <Report>

We recommend reading the Executive Summary and at least the section of the report covering the history of and the need for the secret ballot, pages 4-9 and the section for your state, e.g. Connecticut pages 54-55.

Our only criticism is that the report does not cover the risks to the secret ballot and democracy posed by photos, most often seen in selfies of voters with the voted ballot taken in the voting booth. Nor does it cover the risks to the secret ballot posed by absentee voting.

Posted in CT, CT Law, Electronic Vulnerability, Reports, Skulduggery and Errors | Leave a response

Testimony on Four Bills

By Luther Weeks on March 2, 2016

This year we testified on four bills before the legislature. We supported two bills, and for a change opposed none. For the two we neither supported nor opposed,, we proposed changes to the same sections of the law addressed by the bills.

Posted in CT, CT Law, Post-Election Audits | Leave a response

Help Wanted: Low pay, long hours, impossible demands, no benefits

By Luther Weeks on February 8, 2016

A Courant article reminds us of an idea out of left-field enacted last year by the General Assembly as a “rat*”: Deadline Looms For Regional Election Monitors

When the Connecticut General Assembly passed the budget implementer bill in June 2015, buried in its 702 pages was the stipulation that regional election monitors be in place by March 1.

Those regional monitors were to be hired by each of the nine planning regions in the state. They would be certified by the Secretary of State’s office, but not paid by them.

Gentle reader, before you rush out and apply we note several items which might not be apparent.

Posted in CT, CT Law, Legislature 2015 | Leave a response

Are Feds off-target in disabled ballot probe?

By Luther Weeks on February 3, 2016

From the CT Post: Feds probing how Connecticut handles disabled voters ballots

Both the IVS and the referendum systems, for different reasons, are a disservice to voters with disabilities. Yet the gist of the probe, if the article is correct, is incorrectly aimed at referendums and would be more appropriately aimed at State and Federal elections. Perhaps both should be probed for different reasons.