Category: CT Law

ACLU Forum on Electoral Dysfunction

On Wednesday night I participated on a panel in Waterford, CT on Electoral Dysfunction, sponsored by the ACLU, Common Cause and the LWV. It was a very good discussion with a variety of views from the panel, a wide range of excellent questions, and unsurpassed moderation. In the near future we may have video available. I promised to provide more information here on the topics covered.

On Wednesday night I participated on a panel in Waterford, CT on Electoral Dysfunction, sponsored by the ACLU, Common Cause and the LWV.  It was a very good discussion with a variety of views from the panel, a wide range of excellent questions, and unsurpassed moderation. In the near future we may have video available. I promised to provide more information here on the topics covered. I will start by adding links to my prepared remarks:

Introduction

I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you tonight.

  • CTVotersCount is dedicated to voting integrity for the benefit of the voters of Connecticut. We want your vote to count; We want your vote counted accurately; And we wanted it counted exactly once.
  • As a technologist, I am dedicated to the responsible, effective and efficient use of technology.
  • Beyond elections and technology, I am committed that Democracy Flourish and to Government that Works for Everyone.

Basic and Bold Steps

Last November, President Obama saw the long lines and said “We need to fix that. In response we posted three sets of basic and bold steps to fix our elections and democracy; For Connecticut Elections;  For U.S. Elections; and steps Beyond Election Integrity. Ten basic and bold steps in all.  Tonight I will highlight just four.

  • First, for Democracy: Media Reform – A necessary requirement for democracy according to the founders. Saving the Internet is a last ditch start.
  • If you want more details on these or any of the other topics I discuss today, visit CTVotersCount.org tomorrow.
  • Second idea, for U.S. Elections: Mandate paper ballots optically scanned, nationwide; With recounts and independent manual audits; H.R. 12 co-sponsored by each of Connecticut’s House Members would do just that.
  • Next, fix the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act; [I wonder how many of you know what they are? I will have more to say later].
  • Finally for Connecticut: Do For Elections What We Have Done For Probate:
    • Regionalize, Professionalize, Economize
    • Our town-by-town election system relies on 339, registrars of voters, often very part time, inadequately funded and trained. This system limits our capacity for serving voters and providing voting integrity. We can save money, yet also improve service and integrity.
    • Regionalization is key to efficient early voting and fixing our woeful ballot chain-of-custody.

IRV

Now for IRV and the NPV. I have three concerns with IRV

  • First, surveys show voters do not understand IRV. I am opposed to any voting scheme that requires a smarter voter.
  • Second, in close elections, where it might have value, it can take days or weeks to determine a winner, IRV is technically challenging to count, audit, and recount. The challenges grow with the size of the jurisdiction.
  • Finally, IRV does not deliver as promised – it provides the smarter voter with an impossible challenge to help and not hurt their candidate.

That is all I will say for now on IRV. Like all voting methods can be a crap shoot.

National Popular Vote Agreement

There are more serious issues with the National Popular Vote Agreement.

Like many of you, I learned in the fifth grade, in Ms. Hesbelt’s class, of the odd and unique Electoral College. She taught that we should elect our President by National Popular Vote.  I believed that. I still do.

I have come to view our election system, through the eyes of a computer scientist. Reading the Agreement in 2007, I immediately saw unrecognized problems. Since then, I have continued to study our presidential election system, the Agreement, and those unrecognized problems,

I am convinced that the Agreement, cobbled onto an already risky system for determining the winner adds to that systems flaws. Seriously so.

I suspect, many of you also believe in electing the President by popular vote.

Today I do not expect to change many long held beliefs, but ask you to be to open some to ideas that you are not aware of, some consequences you have yet to consider –unintended, unrecognized, and unacknowledged consequences of the Agreement.

Choosing the President is governed by the 12th Amendment and the Electoral Count Act. The Supreme Court has ruled that they must be followed exactly — Causing the debacles in 1876 and 2000. Legal scholars call these laws a  “Ticking Time Bomb”. The Agreement would not change that.

Just some states have audits and recounts. In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no time for Florida’s recounts and that they were insufficiently uniform.

Some say Recounts and Audits are unnecessary in a national popular vote. Some say they are possible under current law. I beg to disagree.

Many believe Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. I say, “Without audits, how do you know”.

If just Florida had sufficient, timely recounts in 2000, and just Ohio had sufficient audits in 2004, we might have had a different candidate declared President. Or! Or we might have a lot more evidence and confidence that the winner was correctly decided.

Under the Agreement there would be no recount or audit to verify results in any election. Current audits and recounts, available in only about half the states are based, on close votes within a single state. Most could not be accomplished in time to satisfy Electoral Count Act. There is no national body to call for a recount, audit, or assess results.

Even worse, there is no official national popular vote number available in time to determine a winner, for Secretaries of State to choose their electors.

The official numbers are required to be sent to the Federal Government days after electors must be chosen and vote in each state. If you think that a future Ken Blackwell or Catherine Harris would not delay their official results to hamper the process, I would like to know what planet you live on.

Add to these risks several items;

  •  There are many reasons under this scheme that voters, candidates, and officials could challenge the results provided and used by Secretaries of State. Any close election would likely end in a Supreme Court; likely to choose the President based on the precedents set in 2000 and 1876.
  • The Agreement does not make every voter equal, and cannot make every vote equal. Each state has a different franchise. A different level of voter suppression or encouragement.
  • The result of the Compact will be a race to the bottom without uninform voting methods, access, enfranchisement and integrity from state to state.
  • Currently fraud, error, and suppression is limited to swing states, with the Agreement it would be open season, without audits, recounts, or an official popular vote number.

Many of you will ask “If we elect our Governor by popular vote, why not the President.” The answer is that we have uniform election laws across Connecticut. We have an equal franchise, audits, and recanvasses.

Finally, let me encourage you to keep an open mind. Consider these unrecognized consequences. There are prerequisites to a trusted, credible National Popular Vote.

Thank you,

We had two minutes each to reply to questions from the audience. A couple of those merit additional links.

  • Media Reform – for ideas on where to start, I suggested John Nichols excellent book: The Death and Life of American Journalism
  • Better Voting Systems – I could only allude to the possibility and promise of better voting systems designed to serve the voters and officials, while providing election integrity. We are aware of two efforts, led by Dana DeBeauvoir, Travis County Texas, and Dean Logan, LA County, California. We will have more to say soon on Debeauvoir’s latest update presented at NIST and Logan’s effort. For now here is our coverage of DeBeauvoir’s effort as of two years ago <read>

Note: Deputy Secretary of the State James Spallone participated in the panel, replacing Cheri Quickmire from Common Cause, who unfortunately could not attend.

Others Weigh In On Election Reforms

Last week Secretary of the State Denise Merrill weighed in at her press conference on, as the Courant headlines, how “Reforms Could Boost Voter Participation”. Also weighing in was Melissa J. Russell, President of ROVAC (Registrars Of Voters Association, Connecticut).

Last week Secretary of the State Denise Merrill weighed in at her press conference on as the Courant headlines, how Reforms Could Boost Voter Participation <read> <press release>.

Merrill noted that four of the states with better voter turnout than Connecticut last month — Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire and Maine — all allow voters to register on election day. Beginning in Nov., 2013, Connecticut voters will be able to do so as well.

Early voting, voting by mail and no-excuse absentee voting would also boost turnout as well as reducing wait times at polling places on election day, Merrill said.

By our references Connecticut ranked 16th and 17th in voter turnout in 2008 and 2010. This year we ranked 7th – much more than respectable in gains and in absolute rank, especially considering Hurricane Sandy! In fact, Connecticut ranked ahead of many states with early voting and long lines such as Ohio and Florida, not to mention 7 of eleven states with Election Day Registration. We reiterate several themes we have discussed previously:

  • According to statistical analysis and a summary by Doug Chapin at the Secretary’s Election Performance Task Force, which she attended: Early voting, by mail or in-person tends to decrease turnout. In other states, Election Day Registration has increased turnout and mitigated the negative effects of early voting on turnout.
  • Early voting in person can increase convenience, but would be costly to implement, especailly in Connecticut with our independent 169 town voting system. Seven days of early voting would increase election day costs for such towns by close to a factor of 7.
  • Early voting in person can have high integrity, if we are willing to pay for extra security when elections are closed each day.
  • There are better solutions than early voting for long lines on election day. Our scanners can handle thousands of ballots, yet problems this year were caused by a shortage of checkin lines. Each additional line requires one extra official and perhaps a few more privacy booths – much more economical than in person early voting. And it works! Early voting is no panacea – see FL and OH – and during the last two elections storms hit during the likely early voting period, lessening its probable value.
  • Increase mail in voting increases the risk of documented fraud. Mail-in or absentee voting seems to be the source of the easiest and most frequent fraud in U.S. Elections.
  • We support Election Day Registration, but point out that the method chosen for Connecticut is not like the successful methods of other states which increased turnout, and is likely to lead to long lines.

Also weighing in was Melissa J. Russell, President of ROVAC (Registrars Of Voters Association, Connecticut),  where she “looks forward to working closely with the Board and the Committee chairs to improve the professionalization of ROVAC” Op-Ed: Registrars are continually working to improve elections system <read>

We would hope that the ROVAC President, Board, and Committee chairs will not only strive to become more professional, but also to work cooperatively with the Secretary of the State, her office, legislatures, and advocates in improving our election system.

The word “archaic” has been bandied about, along with censure of the long lines voters faced in West Hartford, Hartford and Manchester. In many of these stories, the registrars of voters across the state are taking the brunt of this criticism.

It is unfortunate that the “other side” of the story is not being told. In the vast majority of polling places in the vast majority of towns, the election went smoothly, with fast moving lines, cheerful service to the voters on the part of the poll workers, and swift reporting of results at the end of the night. Large cities such as Bridgeport, Stamford and Norwalk handled the large turnout of voters with no major problems.

Here we agree that by and large most voters, in most towns, voters were well served. Registrars deserve credit along with courteous dedicated poll workers and the Secretary of the State. We can be proud of selecting economical, paper based optical scanners for our elections, and the push from the Secretary to purchase enough ballots to avoid another Bridgeport. Perhaps the shortage of checkin lines and enough staffing for Election Day Registration will be solved to avoid repeated problems of polling place lines, and now problems similar to those experienced for Presidential balloting.

We applaud ROVAC’s endorsement of electronic checkin also championed by many beyond ROVAC. We wonder if they will endorse and lobby their municipalities to pay for it along with the associated internet connectivity required to reach its full potential. We have often heard registrars complain of tight and reduced budges, unable to cover small obviously needed supplies, such as laptops to calculate audit results, a far cry from the requirements of automated checkin.

It is also unfortunate that the “archaic” system is being blamed on the registrars and their poll workers. The Registrars of Voters Association of Connecticut (ROVAC) educates registrars all over the state, both at statewide conferences held twice a year, and in county meetings held three to four times a year. Consider some of the improvements that registrars are currently using and developing in their towns: the use of Skype to communicate with various polling places in the cities, leaving phone lines open for the public; the use and development of electronic check-in books, where a voter is checked in not on a paper list of many pages, but with several clicks of a mouse on a laptop, or the scanning of a barcode next to a voter’s name; and a post-election audit system that uses high-speed scanners rather than teams of people hand inspecting and counting ballots.

ROVAC also supports the use of technology that is already available for our current tabulator system to report results: using either the ports on the back of our tabulators to send results to the secretary of the state’s office instantly, or placing the memory cards that each tabulator houses into an “ender machine” that will read the information on the card and send it electronically to the secretary of the state.

Such use of this technology, which is used in other states without problems, would speed up the reporting of the election results tremendously, while virtually eliminating the mistakes that come from bleary-eyed election workers attempting to read and accurately record numbers by hand onto a Head Moderator’s Return, which then gets faxed to the secretary of the state’s office.

Here we have a couple problems. First, opening the ports is one of the more dangerous options for our election equipment, endorsed by UConn and eliminated by the previous Secretary of the State. Moving the card to an ender machine, would still expose the card and data to security risks. And this will not do the job. Those bleary eyed workers still need to submit the additional information by hand, such as hand counted regular ballots, write-in votes, and various special ballots that cannot be scanned.

We do support auditing by appropriate independent machines, with proven processes that are combined with transparent procedures that can verify the results to the public. We are concerned that instead, we will end up replacing one black-box with another black-box system that is insufficient, and completely voids the potential value at considerable cost. We would hope that ROVAC, the Secretary of the State, CTVotersCount, and other advocates get the opportunity to work together to propose legislation, test, and implement a system that provides better audits, while finding ways to pay for the valuable provided.

A Tale in two Courant Editorials

Where we disagree with the Courant, is that we believe ballots deserve the same level of protection as money and supplies, that the need for verification applies equally to private employees, public employees, and public officials. We are not so sure of trust part of ‘trust but verify’, we would ‘verify sufficiently to deter and trust’.

Two editorials dated Friday, one published on Sunday and one on Monday show the different appreciation some have for money and democracy, the different level of trust some hold for private employees vs. public officials.

Sunday, the Courant provides advice to the Hartford Charter Revision Commission on their trust in public officials, saving public money, and the value of elections: What’s Good, Bad In Hartford Charter Proposals <read>

•Registrars of Voters. Making this office more professional cannot happen soon enough, although it is not clear if it can be done by charter or if a change in state law is necessary.

The city’s first problem is that it has too many registrars, due to a quirk in state law. The law says the candidates for registrar of voters 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.

That happened in Hartford in 2008, when the Working Families Party candidate outpolled the Republican. So both of them and the Democrat all became registrars. Registrars make $80,000; with staff and benefits each costs the city about $200,000 a year.

Now guess what. The registrars say they don’t have enough money to run the fall election and need another $115,000.

This is why people get frustrated with government. In the computer age, towns get by with one nonpartisan registrar; Hartford certainly doesn’t need three.

One way around it might be to make the job appointive, or make it a civil service job in the town clerk’s office, perhaps with part-time registrars from the political parties. The charter commission needs to pick a solution and put it forward.

We are surprised that the Courant does not clearly understand that changing a state law mandating the number of, and election of registrars would require a change in state law. At least they are recognizing that more and more as a possibility as they continue a long string of editorials recommending reform. We are even more surprised that given the many scandals in Connecticut by elected and appointed officials that they would prefer to have elections run by a single politically appointed official. As we have said before, the better solution is to “Do for Elections what we have done for Probate”, regionalize, professionalize, economize. Others have made the case as well.

The editorial run today is about embezzlement in private agency, the Waterbury YMCA. We generally agree with this editorial, especially its final paragraphs: Boys & Girls Club Theft A New Height Of Lowness <read>

The case should stand as a warning to anyone involved with a nonprofit organization. Here, as is often the case when a theft is discovered, the culprit is a trusted longtime employee. Mr. Generali had been associated with the club for more than 30 years. Last year, Donna Gregor, the bookkeeper at the Mark Twain House and Museum in Hartford, was sent to prison for 42 months for embezzling more than $1 million from the museum over eight years, a theft that could have put one of the state’s leading cultural institutions out of business.

The lesson is, in the words of Ronald Reagan in another context, trust but verify. Most embezzlements involve a perpetrator with incentive and without conscience, plus a lack of adequate internal controls, which creates the opportunity to steal.

To avoid it, say accountants who work in this area, have at least two people watching the money in every accounting cycle.

Where we disagree with the Courant, is that we believe ballots deserve the same level of protection as money and supplies, that the need for verification applies equally to private employees, public employees, and public officials. We are not so sure of trust part of ‘trust but verify’, we would ‘verify sufficiently to deter and trust’.

Supreme Court to decide ballot layout and sovereign immunity

I am not a lawyer, however: The law reads like the Secretary of the State is correct in interpreting the law. But it will be a tough precedent if the court accepts the sovereign immunity argument – I would think that would make it harder to sue over any election issue, including when the Secretary has declared an election winner. UPDATED

Courant: Ballot-Line Fight Goes To Supreme Court Wednesday <read>

The state Supreme Court, moving swiftly, will hear oral arguments Wednesday on whether Republicans should replace Democrats at the top of the ballot in November.

In a lawsuit that it filed just last month, the state Republican Party argued that it should receive the top ballot line after the complicated results of the 2010 gubernatorial election…

Although Democrat Dannel P. Malloy won the governor’s race in 2010, he did it with a combination of votes from both the Democratic Party and the union-backed Working Families Party. In the tight race, Republican Tom Foley captured more votes on the Republican line than Malloy did on the Democratic line. With that result, Republicans say that their party should get the top line because they received more votes than any other party.

The GOP sued Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, who ruled that the Democrats should keep the top line on the 2012 ballot. Republicans had questioned an original decision by Merrill, a longtime Democrat, to place the Democrats on the top line for the 2011 municipal elections.

But Merrill says the precise wording of the law means that the party of the candidate with the most votes overall — Malloy and the Democrats, in this case — should go on top…

But the state attorney general’s office, arguing on behalf of Merrill, says in a 37-page legal brief that the case should be dismissed because Merrill acted within her legal boundaries. In addition, attorneys are invoking the doctrine of sovereign immunity, which prevents some lawsuits from being filed against the state.

Here is the text of the Connecticut law, New York’s law might not be identical:

Sec. 9-249a. Order of parties on the ballot label. (a) The names of the parties shall be arranged on the machines in the following order:

(1) The party whose candidate for Governor polled the highest number of votes in the last-preceding election; …

I am not a lawyer, however: The law reads like the Secretary of the State is correct in interpreting the law. But it will be a tough precedent if the court accepts the sovereign immunity argument – I would think that would make it harder to sue over any election issue, including when the Secretary has declared an election winner.

Earlier coverage <read>

Update: 9/12/2012 CTMirror: Both sides cite history in election ballot order battle <read>

Before the Supreme Court, the thicket gets more dense, with precedent and changes in the law, with deadlines approaching!

Update 9/2/2012: Court rules, Republicans get top line <verdict>

We still disagree with the Courant on reforming the office of registrar

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. And change it in the Legislature by following the requirements of State law.

New editorial on old subject:  Hartford Doesn’t Need Three Registrars – A Crazy Waste: One for each party is too costly <read>

The election must be held, of course, and the registrars must try harder to find the money in their stash to pay for it. At the same time, Hartford must quick-step down the path of reforming this bureaucratic colossus.

There are three registrars: a Democratic registrar and staff, a Republican registrar and staff, and a Working Families Party registrar and staff. When the Working Families registrar position was created, there were fewer members of that party registered to vote than there are members of a baseball team.

Requiring a registrar for such a party is a needless waste. Hartford is broke. Mayor Pedro Segarra recently announced an additional 12 layoffs at a time when the city’s non-school, non-public safety, non-registrar payroll is down to bare bones.

Hartford needs only one registrar. It should be a nonpartisan, professional, appointed position.

The city charter revision commission now empaneled should study the issue and include a provision on how best to reform the registrars’ office in its report next January.

Here is where the Courant Editorial Board gets it wrong, in our opinion:

  • It would be illegal for any town in Connecticut to disregard the State law, with regard to how and how many registrars are elected or appointed. Of what value would an item in a local Charter Revision Commission Report be?
  • The number of registered voters in a party is not the only measure of importance. Our analysis of the 2011 municipal election shows six Democratic Party candidates receiving an average of 3,732 votes, four Working Families Party candidates receiving and average of 2,036 votes, and the Republican Party with three candidates averaging just 966 votes.
  • In the past the Courant has advocated for  a single registrar. That is and was a flawed idea, which would leave a risky system subject to political skulduggery: Downsizing Newspaper Recommends Downsizing Registrars <read> And more recently they seem to at least have understood the law, suggesting it was up the the Legislature: Too Many Registrars? Or Too Little Thought? <read>
  • The Courant is correct, we need professional, appointed election administrators. But they should not be appointed locally, especially in single party dominated towns, like Hartford or Bridgeport. As we have said before, and for quite some 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.

Has anyone here seen my old friend Accuracy?

Seems like after just about every election we see media reports of potential and impending ‘recounts’, when there is no such thing in the applicable election statutes. Some may think we are too picky expecting the press and our chief elections official to be precise. Many people call ‘primaries’ ‘elections’ but in the statutes they are different things, just as ‘recounts’ and ‘recanvasses’ are different things in our statutes and in common use.

Accuracy matters in word and in deed.

Seems like after just about every election we see media reports of potential and impending ‘recounts’, when there is no such thing in the applicable election statutes. See these stories:  CTNewsJunkie, MyLeftNutmeg, the Courant, and the CTMirror.  Where do that all get that same inaccurate idea? Perhaps from the Secretary of the State’s press release, subtitled: SECRETARY OF THE STATE NOTIFIES REGISTRARS AND TOWN CLERKS IN NEW HAVEN,WEST HAVEN, HARTFORD AND WINDSOR THEY HAVE UNTIL TUESDAY AUGUST 21ST TO COMPLETE RECOUNTS IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY DISTRICTS 5 & 116 <read> At lease she pointed them to the right statutes that use the word ‘recanvass’:

Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 9-311 and 9-311a, recounts are to be conducted by election moderators and supervised by Registrars of Voters. The recounts for the 2012 Primary Elections must be complete by Tuesday August 21, 2012.

Some may think we are too picky expecting the press and our chief elections official to be precise. Many people call ‘primaries’ ‘elections’ but in the statutes they are different things, just as ‘recounts’ and ‘recanvasses’ are different things in our statutes and in common use. When we think of recounts we think of the slow and controversial process in Florida in 2000, or the deliberate, adversarial, and ACCURATE process in Minnesota in 2008.

We have said it all before, several times, that a recanvass is not a recount, a recanvass is useful, but a recount is sometimes advisable. Perhaps we said it best in this op-ed: CTMirror Op-Ed: State recanvass law inadequate for close elections <read>

This could be quite confusing if they think there was a ‘recount’ in Windsor/Hartford, but the close result ends in a court battle for a ‘recount’.

We point out that words matter. Seems like just a few days ago the Secretary of The State was able rule that the Democratic Party had line 1 on the ballot, while the Working Families Party could not since they were not really the type of party referenced in the applicable statute.

Courant: Keep Primary in Aug. We agree.

We agree with the Courant and add some details to the case against September and June.

Courant Editorial:  Leave Connecticut Primary Date Alone – Primary Elections Changing months has its drawbacks <read>

Heat and vacations help make August “a terrible time to have a primary” election, Gov.Dannel P. Malloysaid this week. So he’s going to ask the legislature to change the dates once again — to June for congressional primaries and to September for legislative primaries.

Don’t set those months in concrete just yet, governor. Changing the dates might cause more trouble than it’s worth…

A Courant editorial two years ago quoted a blogger whose research showed that August primaries were historically no worse and often better at attracting voters than September ones. Consider the August 2006 Democratic U.S. Senate primary contest between Ned Lamont andJoseph I. Lieberman. It drew 53 percent of the party’s registered voters…

Give voters a good show, make it easy to get in, and they will come.

The last time the legislature switched primary dates — from September to August — lawmakers on the winning side argued that holding it in September chopped too much time out of the general election campaign. When a June primary was proposed, incumbents complained, understandably, that they wouldn’t have as much time as their challengers to campaign.

We agree with the Courant and add some details to the arguments:

  • September primaries leave precious little time for determining the winners with potential recanvasses and court challenges. Especially considering Federal requirements to print and distribute absentee ballots to military and overseas voters forty five days before the November election.
  • Incumbents and unopposed candidates without primary challengers would be advantaged in the September primary with the limited time available for candidates to raise funds and campaign for the November election.
  • In any case, most campaigning for September primaries would occur in August and include Labor Day weekend.
  • June would be difficult for all candidates. When would party conventions be held? Late May would be far too late for challengers to create a real campaign. State Legislators and sitting state officials would be running campaigns in the middle of the busiest part of the legislative session.
  • June would not only interfere with legislative business, it would add to the campaign season. Many of those calling for a June primary would be added to those complaining that campaigns are too long!

Update:

The Courant Editorial seems to imply that Election Day Registration (EDR) applies to primaries:

Connecticut took a step in the right direction this year when the General Assembly passed legislation authorizing Election Day registration — a proven turnout booster. Same-day registration goes into effect in Connecticut next year.

Give voters a good show, make it easy to get in, and they will come.

The bill that passed in Connecticut this year only provides EDR for elections not primaries. We checked with the Secretary of the State’s Office – they concurred with our interpretation. Although we are in favor of EDR, we opposed this year’s bill because it may cause problems without the benefits of EDR successful in other states.

Everything you wanted to know about voter ID, including Connecticut

REMINDER: Most voters do not need a voter ID in Connecticut.(but it is easier if you bring one) Some 1st time registrants do under the Help America Vote Act.

ProPublica article on voter id: Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Know About Voter ID Laws <read>

Starting with the heart of the matter:

Why are these voter ID laws so strongly opposed?

Voting law advocates contend these laws disproportionately affect elderly, minority and low-income groups that tend to vote Democratic. Obtaining photo ID can be costly and burdensome, with even free state ID requiring documents like a birth certificate that can cost up to $25 in some places. According to a study from NYU’s Brennan Center, 11 percent of voting-age citizens lack necessary photo ID while many people in rural areas have trouble accessing ID offices. During closing arguments in a recent case over Texas’s voter ID law, a lawyer for the state brushed aside these obstacles as the “reality to life of choosing to live in that part of Texas.”

Attorney General Eric Holder and others have compared the laws to a poll tax, in which Southern states during the Jim Crow era imposed voting fees, which discouraged the working class and poor, many of whom were minorities, from voting.

Given the sometimes costly steps required to obtain needed documents today, legal scholars argue that photo ID laws create a new “financial barrier to the ballot box.”

Just how well-founded are fears of voter fraud?

There have been only a small number of fraud cases resulting in a conviction. A New York Times analysis from 2007 identified 120 cases filed by the Justice Department over five years. These cases, many of which stemmed from mistakenly filled registration forms or misunderstanding over voter eligibility, resulted in 86 convictions.

There are “very few documented cases,” said UC-Irvine professor and election law specialist Rick Hasen. “When you do see election fraud, it invariably involves election officials taking steps to change election results or it involves absentee ballots which voter ID laws can’t prevent,” he said.

One of the most vocal supporters of strict voter ID laws, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, told the Houston Chronicle earlier this month that his office has prosecuted about 50 cases of voter fraud in recent years. “I know for a fact that voter fraud is real, that it must be stopped, and that voter id is one way to prevent cheating at the ballot box and ensure integrity in the electoral system,” he told the paper. Abbott’s office did not immediately respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.

There are several other details covered in the ProPublica article. Pennsylvania’s law is perhaps coming under the most fire as the strictest and most burdensome. As this article points out, absentee voting essentially requires no id, so a voter intent on voting for someone else or registering fraudulently has a much easier method available: New Pa. voter ID law criticized as inconsistent <read>

Pennsylvanians who vote by absentee ballot in November will need only to provide proof on their applications that they have Social Security cards, state Rep. Dan Frankel said Monday night.

All voters who show up in person on Election Day, however, must have state-approved photo identification, the Squirrel Hill Democrat said.

“If the last four digits [of a Social Security number] are good enough for absentee ballots, they should be good enough for voting at the polls,” he said during a discussion of the state’s new voter ID law.

In Connecticut we have a moderate voter Id requirement that does not have the barriers that are so controversial in other states, still stricter that those for voting by absentee ballot. From the Moderators Handbook:

b. VOTER I.D. AND VOTING

The elector announces their street number, address and name in a loud voice to the checkers.  Each elector must present one of the following forms of identification to the checkers:

  • Their social security card, or
  • any pre-printed form of identification which shows their name and address, or
  • any pre-printed form of identification which shows their name and signature, or
  • any pre-printed form of identification which shows their name and photograph, or
  • sign a statement under penalty of false statement on Form ED-681 entitled, “Signatures of Electors Who Did Not Present ID”, provided by the Secretary of the State (see Form 3 in this Handbook) that the elector whose name appears on the official check list is the elector signing the form.  (§9-261)

As in all states there are also special HAVA requirements for some 1st time voters:

d. HAVA IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

NOTE:  INDIVIDUAL VOTERS SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL HAVA IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS WILL HAVE AN ASTERISK (*) NEXT TO THEIR NAME  ON THE OFFICIAL VOTER LIST.

Please note, that in addition to the above procedures, those first time voters who register by mail after January 1, 2003, and vote for the first time in a federal election after January 1, 2004 are subject to the following additional requirements under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA):

  1. The voter must present identification with their mail-in registration or at the polls;
  2. If the voter is required to present identification at the polls pursuant to HAVA, the acceptable forms of identification under HAVA are:

a. A copy of a current and valid photo identification;

  1. A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or government document that shows the name and address of the voter;

EXCEPTION: If the voter provides:

  1. A valid Connecticut motor vehicle operator’s license number; or
  2. The last four digits of the individual’s Social Security number.

AND

The Registrars of Voters are able to verify that information prior to the election, the remaining HAVA identification provisions will not apply to the voter.  However, normal Connecticut identification procedures will still apply.

NOTE:  Members of the armed forces and persons entitled to use the federal post card application under section 9-153a of the general statutes, as amended by this act, are not required to provide identification when registering by mail.

If the voter is required to present identification at the poll pursuant to HAVA, the applicant is NOT allowed to sign a statement under penalty of false statement on Form ED-681 entitled “Signatures of Electors Who Did Not Present ID”, prescribed by the Secretary of the State that the elector whose name appears on the official check list is the elector signing.  (§9-261) (See Form 3)

If the voter is required to provide identification at the poll pursuant to HAVA and does NOT provide identification as outlined in section d(2), the applicant will be entitled to a provisional ballot.  See section entitled “Provisional Ballot” for information.

Our opinion

In Connecticut we are lucky to avoid the controversy this year. Lucky because we have moderate requirements that should satisfy those with reasonable concerns, yet not keep voters from voting because of costly and time consuming requirements. With no evidence of anything beyond the possibility of very very isolated cases of voter fraud in polling place voting there is no reason to add to our Id requirements. The ball is in the court of those with concerns to demonstrate the need.

We maintain our position that unlimited absentee voting or mail-in voting represent a real and much greater risk and concern. With absentee voting, individual voter fraud represents a minor part of our concern; where untended disenfranchising voter error represent a greater concern; and where documented and potential organized voting fraud by insiders and outsiders represents the greatest risk.

Newspapers join CTVotersCount, ACLU, and CBIA in objections to H.B. 5556

CTVotersCount opposes H.B. 5556 and has urged Governor Malloy to veto the bill because it contains a provision for risky, unconstitutional email and fax voting.

CTVotersCount also opposes H.B. 5556 and has urged Governor Malloy to veto the bill because it contains a provision for risky, unconstitutional email and fax voting.

The underdefined provisions for military and overseas voters were added to an otherwise unrelated bill at the last minute by Senator Gayle Slossberg. Email and fax voting were never the subject of public hearings this year or ever by the General Assembly.

Not only are those voting mechanisms risky, we believe they are unconstitutional. They require individual voters to sign away their right to a secret vote, since email and fax votes cannot be made secret. However, we believe the secret vote guaranteed by the Connecticut Constitution is every voter’s right that no individual voter’s vote can be associated with the individual, such that their vote could be coerced or intimidated. So an individual voter cannot sign away that right for all other voters.

The newspaper, ACLU, and CBIA have other concerns and constitutional objections. Here is an article from the Hartford Courant discussing those concerns: Newspapers Ask Malloy To Veto Bill <read>

Under the interpretation of the bill by the Connecticut Daily Newspapers Association, newspapers that sponsor a political debate would be required to calculate “the value of the debate — i.e., set-up, airtime, advertising, etc. — coupled with the broadcasting of such debate” as an “independent expenditure” that would need to be reported publicly under the recently approved campaign finance bill.

In addition, the newspaper association board would need to approve those expenses, and the board “would then be required to disclose the votes of individual board members and ‘pertinent information’ that took place during the discussion of the expenditure,” according to a letter to Malloy by Chris Van DeHoef, the association’s executive director.

“If CDNA should partner with a local television station to host and televise a debate and CDNA placed ads in its members’ papers, would those ads constitute an independent expenditure?” Van DeHoef asked in his letter. “Would the airtime be an independent expenditure?”

Which, if any, of Connecticut’s 169 towns would be secure for Internet voting (let alone email and fax voting)?

Some of the smaller Connecticut towns have very part time registrars who maintain office hours as infrequent as one hour a week. Registrars in their 70’s and 80’s whose towns have not provided them with access to email. Towns that have resisted laws to require them to post meeting minutes on the web as too challenging and costly? How will those towns accept and provide security for email and fax voting? How about even our larger cities? How well prepared are they and can they be?

Last week the Legislature, without public hearings, passed email and fax voting, stuffed in an otherwise popular bill. It would mandate each of Connecticut’s 169 towns and 339 registrars of voters to implement voting via email and fax from any location in the world. As is well know, email and fax are totally insecure.

Less well known, is how unprepared and unable our nations cities are in securing the internet. It should be obvious since our corporations, including networking giants,  intelligence community, and military forces are not able to secure their networks. For a lesson in cyber security of the internet (with email being the most vulnerable), consider Homeland Security expert Bruce McConnell’s recent talk <read/view>

Recently the New York Times highlighted a report on the security of our nations cities: U.S. Study Cites Worries on Readiness for Cyberattacks <read>

A study commissioned by President Obama to assess the nation’s ability to respond to terrorist attacks and man-made and natural disasters has found that state and local officials have the most confidence in their public health and medical services but are the most concerned about whether agencies can respond to cyberattacks…

But it was the report’s findings about cybersecurity that appeared to be the most troubling, and they continued a drumbeat from the Obama administration about the need for Congress to pass legislation giving the Department of Homeland Security the authority to regulate computer security for the country’s infrastructure.

The report said that cybersecurity “was the single core capability where states had made the least amount of overall progress” and that only 42 percent of state and local officials believed that theirs was adequate.

Although a little more than 80 percent of officials said they had adopted measures to address the issue, 45 percent said they did not have a formal program to prevent and respond to attacks.

The report said that roughly two-thirds of those officials reported that they had not updated their “information security or disaster recovery plans in at least two years.”

The preparedness report said that a little less than two-thirds of the companies in the United States had sustained cyberattacks and that “only 50 percent of owners and operators at high-priority facilities” like electrical grids said that they reported such attacks.

Since 2006, there has been a 650 percent increase in the number of reported cyberattacks in the United States, rising to 41,776 in 2010 from 5,503 in 2006, according to the report.

Some the smaller of Connecticut towns have very part time registrars who maintain office hours as infrequent as one hour a week. Registrars in their 70’s and 80’s whose towns have not provided them with access to email.  Towns that have resisted laws to require them to post meeting minutes on the web as too challenging and costly? How will those towns accept and provide security for email and fax voting? How about even our larger cities? How well prepared are they and can they be?