CT Law | CTVotersCount.org

Extra/missing ballots a problem in Pennsylvania, not in Connecticut

In Philadelphia its a problem to be investigated when there are several voting districts with a few more ballots than voters. In Connecticut we have no confidence that such differences would be found or considered worthy of resolution or investigation.

In Philadelphia it is a problem to be investigated when there are several voting districts with a few more ballots than voters <read>

Philadelphia city commissioners are investigating an unusual series of over-votes in last year’s primary election – 83 voting divisions citywide where the official vote totals were bigger than the recorded number of voters who showed up.

In most locations, the discrepancies were small, just a handful of votes. In many instances, minor procedural mistakes could account for the anomalies.

But so far, the bulk of the over-voting has not been explained.

Until they understand what happened, the commissioners say, they cannot rule out the possibility of deliberate, illegal efforts to run up votes for favored candidates, with the perpetrators losing count as they tried to cover their tracks.

In Connecticut we have no confidence that such differences would be found or considered worthy of resolution or investigation. There is no requirement that voters be compared with ballots in our post-election audits and recanvasses. In fact, even though the Citizen Bridgeport Recount found huge differences in both directions (more ballots than voters in some districts, and more voters than ballots in other districts) there has never been an official recognition of the problem. Also unlike many other states we do not require voters to sign in, a significantly more reliable and auditable process than the check-in marks by poll workers – because officials and voters make sure the correct name is marked, and there is a signature which can provide some evidence in fraud investigations.

At a 20th Ward polling place near Temple University in North Philadelphia, only six people signed the poll book, required before they were ushered to a voting machine.

Could It Happen Here? Too wide to scan, would we count or copy?

Brad Blog reports ballots too wide to scan in Wisconsin. The official solution – count by hand? NO. They copied the ballots and scanned. We agree with Brad that this is unacceptable. But what would happen in Connecticut – would one of our warnings come true?

Brad Blog reports ballots too wide to scan in Wisconsin. The official solution – count by hand? NO. They copied the ballots and scanned: Voted Ballots ‘Remade’ by Election Workers in WI After Being Printed Too Wide for Optical-Scanners <read>

During yesterday’s Wisconsin primary election, a number of paper ballots were sent out in several counties that were reportedly too wide to be tabulated by the computerized optical-scan systems used to tally ballots in the state. The same exact thing happened just two weeks ago during the Illinois primary sending election officials into a panic and causing delays for some voters..

one way in which the failure was dealt with in both Illinois and Wisconsin continues to be extremely troubling and, frankly, offense: the practice of election workers manually “remaking” the ballots of voters after the election, in ostensible secret, and before they are tabulated…

It has become standard practice across the country for election workers to actually create new ballots, by hand, out of ballots that cannot be read by optical-scan tallying computers. The workers either “remake” those ballots correctly or incorrectly. Who knows?

We agree with Brad that this is unacceptable. How accurately are they copied? Is there a law supporting this? Is there an audit to check, is there a numbering of original and copied ballots such that individual ballots can be verified? Our choice would be counting as that would be easier to check, audit, or recount and recover from. Simpler to prove or restore integrity and confidence. Probably less effort in the first place.

What would happen in Connecticut? Last year we cautioned that the Secretary of the State’s and Legislature’s “solution” to the Bridgeport fiasco was insufficient. It would prevent the Bridgeport problem by printing more ballots and call for a town by town contingency plan. We warned that there were other events that count trigger a similar problem and more was needed.

Here we may have prevented just one of those triggering events. Triple the expected number of ballots could be ordered, but that would not prevent a problem if they could not be read by the scanners, ‘What Would Bridgeport Do?’, ‘What Would West Hartford Do?’ or ‘What Would Mansfield Do?’

A contingency plan might help if it anticipated a wide range of circumstances and was actually used in an emergency. But we are skeptical – What would there be that would cause Bridgeport or any other town to count accurately by hand in those circumstances, another time? What would there be to insure copying ballots was done faithfully? And that the copying was done onto readable ballots? Once again there is no law allowing any authority to step in, supervise, help, or mandate solutions or reviews. Maybe a court could be convinced to intervene?

Finally, we point out that a law requiring a contingency plan without a deadline, is even less useful than a contingency plan gathering dust on the shelf. Thus far there is no required municipal plan in place in Connecticut. Required first is a regulation containing a model plan from the Secretary of the State. Perhaps that model plan will be a pleasant surprise. Perhaps it will lead to adoption of effective plans across the state. Perhaps the plans will not stay on the shelves and will help avoid integrity and confidence problems.

A Tale Of Two Laws

This year we noticed quite a difference between hearings for bills that Legislators really understand and others covering subjects with which they are not intimately familiar. When it comes to ethics and elections they really pay detailed attention to bills that effect them, such as disclosure of conflicts of interest and campaign finance rules — they write detailed laws with everything spelled out. The disparity in attention to detail shows up in the extent and insight in their questions during hearings, as well as in the text of proposed laws. When it comes to laws they seem to not understand so well, they do not, and perhaps cannot be expected to, pay attention to the details.

Compare the changes to and details in the campaign finance law, H.B. 5228, 117 pages, 3700 lines, with the single bill H.B. 5024, with 15 pages, 415 lines. 314 of those lines dedicated to a major change providing for Election Day Registration and 101 lines to the moderate change providing for Online Registration.

The Legislature is correct to specify in law the many critical details associated with campaign spending. As we have said before, Election Day Registration deserves a lot more of those critical details spelled out to protect the rights of all voters (and candidates).

We see a similar bent in the Connecticut Constitution having 31 amendments, with, by our count, 7 addressing the composition or redistricting of the Legislature. Typically those amendments are much longer and more detailed than the others.

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.

Gov, SOTS call for election day registration, online registration, and amendment for absentee voting

CTVotersCount has long been in favor of Election Day Registration (EDR) and concerned with the risks of unlimited absentee voting. We also strongly support online voter registration, not to be confused with online voting which we and many others oppose. Studies show that EDR increases turn-out, while absentee voting decreases turn-out, the stated goal behind the measures proposed in today’s press conference.

Press release GOV. MALLOY AND SECRETARY OF THE STATE MERRILL CALL FOR PRESERVING ACCESS TO ELECTIONS <read>

To make registration more efficient and create a more accurate voter file, proposed legislation would create web-based voter registration for Connecticut citizens who have a valid and current driver’s license; allow for Election Day registration to improve voter turnout; and call for absentee ballots to be governed by statute, which would give legislators the ability to adopt laws that address voters who cannot get to polling locations on Election Day. The legislation would also increase penalties on any effort to block or impede voter access.

In the past Secretary Merrill has opposed EDR. We welcome the change.

In addition to our integrity concerns with unlimited absentee voting, studies show that EDR increases turn-out, while absentee voting decreases turn-out, the stated goal behind the measures proposed in today’s press conference.

Other coverage: CTNewsJunkie (with discussion and several of my comments) CT-N Video of Press Conference

An alternative view at CTNewsJunkie <read>

Update – see my comment and those of others in a discussion at a cross-post at MyLeftNutmeg, where I am BlastFromGlast

More details on EDR can be obtained from reports at the Elections Performance Task Force.

Elections should not primarily (no pun intended) be about convenience of election officials or selection of our government in the cheapest way possible. However, in addition to other benefits Online Voter Registration in conjunction with motor vehicles can save lots overall – the state pays a bit and the towns save a lot – the reverse of an unfunded mandate. See:
http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/li…
http://www.sots.ct.gov/sots/li…

From what I have heard there are plenty of registration problems in college towns now. EDR may mean more work on election day to benefit democracy, but costs should largely be offset by less work earlier and in Presidential elections the elimination of the special Presidential ballot for those not registered.

And there are errors in our current voter registration database that have not been solved by all the time available to fix them ahead of the election. Sadly, the State does not even have a good list of polling places in each election as evidenced by errors in the polling place list used to select districts for audit – according to the previous SOTS Office the voter reg database cannot be used for an accurate list because it has errors in polling places (not just the locations, but the number in use in each town), a presumably much easier item to keep up to date then voter lists, since it is entirely under the control of local election officials.

Governor Extends Voter Registration Deadline via Executive Order

If the governor has such powers, perhaps in election emergencies, the governor could be called upon or even expected to do what the Secretary of the State cannot do – order polls to stay open late in an emergency, choose extra voting districts for audit, or order discrepancy recanvasses in districts with questionable results!

Example coverage from The Day <read>

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has issued an executive order extending voter registration until noon on Monday, Nov. 7.

The original deadline was tonight at 8, but the change was made to accommodate voters who would have trouble getting to municipal offices because of the power outages and damage from the weekend storm, according to the Secretary of State’s office.

Residents can obtain voter registration forms at www.sots.ct.gov or by visiting town offices or the Division of Motor Vehicles.

Executive Order #12

Hartford Registrars: Fighting Disrupts City Office

Squabbling between the city’s three [registrars of voters] has become so disruptive that Mayor Pedro Sagarra wrote them a formal letter asking them to work out their differences. He even offered to personally convene a meditation session to help

Hartford Courant, Fighting Disrupts City Office – Help Offered For Registrars <read>

Squabbling between the city’s three [registrars of voters] has become so disruptive that Mayor Pedro Sagarra wrote them a formal letter asking them to work out their differences. He even offered to personally convene a meditation session to help resolve them.

In his letter, sent Oct 4 to Democratic Registrar Olga Iris Vazquez, Republican Registrar Salvatore Bramante and Working Families party Registrar Urania Petit, Segarra noted the special dynamic involved in having a registrars’ office with three political parties represented.

On the other hand we would think that three registrars offer the opportunity to vote on disagreements, rather than the need for the normal two registrars to agree on everything. Two registrars is no guarantee of dust-up free election administration, see <here> <here> <here>

We are not so sure the problem is with all three registrars, perhaps the problem involves two registrars, with perhaps only one causing the problem. Only the registrars and a neutral mediator could know for sure:

Petit said the incident that likely prompted Segarra’s letter occurred several weeks ago when a meeting was scheduled between the corporation counsel’s office and the registrars office to discuss plans for the November election. A few days before the meeting, Petit said, Vazquez sent an email that she wouldn’t be attending if Petit was going to attend.

That type of dispute has been the norm since she took office, Petit said.
[The other registrars declined comment on the current situation]

Here is an example of another dust-up from 2009 in Hartford <read>

The Courant would rather see one registrar, in place of two or three in each town. We support the current law, but suggest that Hartford could easily reduce hours and salaries to compensate for three people doing the job, with the squabbling being an example of wasting the taxpayers money. <read>

We would like to see the state move to regional professional election administration, to do for elections what we have done for probate. But until that should happen we support the current system that provides one registrar for each major party and one or two additional registrars if they receive more votes than the major party candidates:

Hartford is dominated by the Democratic party, so the party needs and deserves a Democratic registrar
Hartford participates in state-wide elections and Republican voters state-wide need a Republican registrar in Hartford to watch out for that party’s interests in those elections.
Hartford’s second largest vote getting party is the Working Families Party, they deserve and need a registrar to watch out for their interests.

In Hartford, sometimes it seems that one Democratic registrar is not enough to watch out for the interests of all Democratic voters <read>

Bad News, Good News, Bad News, Good News, Bad News from Bridgeport

Oooops the law passed just this year to fix the problems in Bridgeport said nothing about the SOTS being able to walk into central absentee ballot counting operations, only polling places. In the words of Cindi Rice, “Who could have imagined…”

Update: More problems, documented this time. Was it fraud, mismanagement, or incompetence? Who knows for sure?

An editorial in the CT Post highlighting the excitement surrounding the election, the attention, and the hijinks: A chance for Bridgeport Democrats to weigh in <read>

That there will be a Democratic mayoral primary Tuesday is a good thing for the city of Bridgeport.

Pick your favorite, but the exchange of ideas, suggestions, accusations, recriminations and so on between Mayor Bill Finch and challenger Mary-Jane Foster has put some energy in the air in a city that needs every bit of energy it can muster.

There are indeed ways to measure that energy.

Consider this: In 2007, when Christopher Caruso, a popular legislator from the North End of the city, challenged Finch, 493 absentee ballots were cast in the mayoral primary. Finch won that contest, incidentally, by fewer than 300 votes.

As of Friday, the Bridgeport Town Clerk’s office had received 1,200 applications for absentee ballots, and 756 executed ballots had been returned.

The good news? There’s plenty of interest.

The potential bad news? All those absentee ballots should make fans of fair elections just a little nervous.

[good news] So it’s a pleasing development that Connecticut Secretary of the State Denise Merrill has said she’ll have a presence in Bridgeport on Tuesday for the 2011 version of the Democratic mayoral primary.

The Post covered and we commented on some absentee ballot allegations earlier this week: Absentee Fraud in Bridgeport? Who could have imagined? <read> Now the Post covers more, the same day as the editorial: Bridgeport absentee ballots becoming focus of election complaints <read>

[more bad news] Jason Bartlett, Foster’s campaign manager, said that Councilwoman Lydia N. Martinez, D-137, illegally assisted several elderly residents of Harborview Towers in filling out their absentee ballots. Martinez could not be reached for comment.

According to Bartlett, Martinez was at Harborview Towers collecting filled-in absentee ballots, which would be illegal under state law. The law requires that an absentee ballot can only be touched by a voter, a letter carrier, a police officer, a caretaker or an immediate family member. Bartlett said that this is “clearly illegal” activity, particularly because Martinez is a city council candidate.

Harborview Towers, on the city’s East Side, is a high-rise public housing complex that caters mostly to elderly and disabled residents.

Bartlett said that Martinez was also seen by Foster campaign workers engaged in similar activities in an apartment building on Grant Street, in the East End.

The Foster camp additionally charged that some Finch campaign workers were using the fact that the primary had to be rescheduled from Sept. 13 to Sept. 27 to confuse voters who support Foster.

“They’re taking advantage of the rescheduled primary by sending known Foster supporters second and third absentee ballot application forms. They’re trying to confuse them into voting twice, which would invalidate their vote,” he said. “We’ve asked that people from the secretary of the state’s office come down and safeguard the absentee ballot process.”

We have no way of substantiating or refuting the allegations. There is one more piece of bad news, as we commented on the Editorial, including a quote from the article:

More bad news, the SOTS presence will not provide confidence with regard to Absentee Ballots. Oooops the law [passed just this year to fix the problems in Bridgeport] said nothing about the SOTS being able to walk into central absentee ballot counting operations, only polling places. (Of course like any citizen they can watch the AB operation from a distance). In the words of Cindi Rice “Who could have imagined…”

According to a CTPost article yesterday:

“But Av Harris, a spokesman for Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, said that her office’s authority over absentee ballots is very limited, adding that complaints on absentee irregularities must be heard by the state Elections Enforcement Commission and also the courts.”

Update: More problems, documented this time. Was it fraud, mismanagement, or incompetence? Who knows for sure? Finch campaign mails incorrect voting locations to some voters <read>

“The Finch campaign sent a mailing out last week to a couple hundred newly registered voters in an attempt to boost voter participation and educate these voters about the upcoming primary election and the mayor’s record of progress,” Breslin said in an email. “The campaign was also trying to educate voters about where to vote on Election Day, as many of these voters are first-time voters in Bridgeport. Unfortunately, this limited list of new voters included some inaccurate polling locations.”

The Connecticut Post discovered one instance in which a resident of developer Phil Kuchma’s Fairfield Avenue complex, just blocks away from City Hall, received a mailing informing the resident that Blackham School was her polling place.

A day or two later, an identical mailing arrived. The only difference in the mailing was the switching of the words Blackham School for City Hall.

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.

Let us consider doing for Elections what we have done for Probate

The legislature should be considering doing for our elections what we have done for probate. I am not the 1st to suggest this, let us hope that our legislature is not the last to consider it.

CTMirror: A turnaround for the fiscally troubled probate courts <read>

We particularly note from the article:

On the heels of a major consolidation, Connecticut’s probate court system will end a year in the black for the first time in six fiscal years later this month, reducing its reliance on the General Fund and returning more than $5 million to the state’s coffers…

One of the oldest probate courts systems in the nation with roots dating back over 300 years, the Connecticut courts underwent a dramatic restructuring in January to reverse growing financial woes…

“The first point of the whole reorganization was to stem the hemorrhaging once we abandoned the idea that the courts could pay entirely for themselves,” said Rep. Robert Godfrey, D-Danbury, who spearheaded the reform effort that took two years to move through the legislature. “The fact that it happened was a miracle.”

As we said in 2nd comment on the CTNewsJunkie article:

The legislature should be considering doing for our elections what we have done for probate. We have 169 towns, each with at least two elected registrars of voters. Consolidation, if done appropriately, could yield decreased costs, increased professionalism, increased convenience, increased integrity, and confidence.

I am not the 1st to suggest this, lets hope that our legislature is not the last to consider it.

There are several ways this could be accomplished. Regionalization of dual elected registrars is one. Another way, which I would favor, would be regional professional, civil service, directors responsible for voting, perhaps with local registrars elected and paid a small stipend to watch out for the integrity interests of municipalities, voters, and parties. No matter how it is strutured it can be done well or poorly. The current system is inefficient and has proven problematic both in small towns and in large cities.