Category: CT Skulduggery and Errors

96.6% Of Memory Cards OK, Half Of Registrars Follow Last Minute Procedures

At the request of the Secretary of the State, Dr. Alex Shvartsman and his team at the UConn VoTeR Center tested memory cards which were shipped to UConn by registrars across the state. <full report>

From the summary:

The total of 522 cards were received and tested by the VoTeR Center, out of which 378 cards were received before the election. Out of the total number of cards, 18 cards, or 3.5% were found to contain “junk” data, that is, they were unreadable, which is easily detected by the tabulators as such, and could not have been used in the election. The rest of the cards, or 96.6%, were found to have been properly programmed for election. These cards contained valid ballot data and the executable code on these cards was the expected code, with no extraneous data or code on the cards.

About half of the cards were found to have been tested and set for election-the intended state of the cards following the prescribed testing procedure. Most of the remaining cards were tested by the towns but not set for election; while this is not a problem, this suggested that the relevant towns/districts either misunderstood the instructions or did not follow the instructions. One card was found in the state set for election but with non-zero counters, indicating that the district tested he card in election mode and did not reset the card. This is a potentially problematic, but detectable situation, since proper procedures require that the “zero counter” report is produced at the start of the election

Full Disclosure: I played a role in suggesting this program to the Secretary of the State’s office at a meeting in October. Professor Michael Fisher of Yale and TrueVoteCT greatly improved on my suggestion. Continue reading “96.6% Of Memory Cards OK, Half Of Registrars Follow Last Minute Procedures”

Legislature To Hold Public Hearings On Optical Scan Elections

The leadership of the Government Administration and Elections Committee(GAE) announced a series of five public hearings at a press conference yesterday. One hearing will be held in each of the five congressional districts in the state. Towns where the hearings will be held were announced with no specific dates or locations. Their goal is to have the hearings during the 2nd and 3rd week of February. The towns will be West Hartford, Norwich, East Haven, Norwalk, and Danbury.

I attended the press conference but did not take verbatim quotes so I will summarize.

This is very good news for several reasons.

  • The GAE clearly recognizes that the public as well as registrars have concerns.
  • The GAE indicated that they have heard from registrars but also want to hear more from the public.
  • The areas of concern recognized so far include: registrars’ concerns for time and cost of recounts and audits; voters concerns with election day privacy, with the optical scan machine integrity, and with the integrity of the audits. (our coalition report was mentioned in the press conference)
  • The GAE is open to hearing the public and, if warranted, changing the law in the short session.
  • It is a true bi-partisan effort supported by the committee co-chairs and the ranking members. Democrats Caruso, Slossberg, and Urban. Republicans Freedman and Heartherington.

I was also pleased with the questions from the press, asking about Connecticut vs New Hampshire, and the outsourcing of elections to LHS. The GAE members said that we may well learn from the experience in New Hampshire.

On the other side of the ledger, the GAE is open to considering an optical scan based recount in close races. They say it is only one suggestion and they are not at this point recommending it. We have seen that the machines usually count accurately, yet they also frequently count inaccurately both in New Hampshire and in Connecticut. We certainly hope this idea is quickly abandoned in favor of physics, science, and reason.

Update: Stamford Advocate Story <read>

“[Secretary of the State Bysiewicz] Susan’s been the biggest cheerleader for this system and at times I don’t think she’s been able to step back and look at it objectively (and) hear some of the problems that are occurring,” Caruso said.

Recounts: Some Good News. Some Not So Good News.

Update: 1/11/2008 I have scanned in the actual report of the New Canaan recount sent to the Secretary of the State’s Office. Read the full report <here> the critical information provided by the Head Moderator is:

Totals were the same as the original count or close with the exception of Paul Foley (-31 votes) [MINUS 31]. An assistant registrar, a registrar, and I independently recounted (again) all tally sheets and totals for the recanvass and the tapes’ data from the tabulator print-outs on the moderator’s report for the 11/06/07 returns finding no error. The cause of the variance of Foley versus the other six candidates is unknown.

In other words the machine counted 31 votes more than the paper indicated. Perhaps we can say a lot of things but we cannot say that “the machines counted perfectly or accurately”. We could say “the machines counted every vote (and then some)”.

Original Post 1/4/2008:

Continue reading “Recounts: Some Good News. Some Not So Good News.”

Blank Memory Cards and No Problems In Recounts?

Update: The Secretary of the State’s Office was offered four hours to comment on this entry before publication, but said they needed more time to gather information. We will post their response promptly.

New York Times: Voting Machines Are Put To The Test – reviews the optical scan performance in the municipal elections, with information from Secretary Byseiwicz <read>

I found a couple of items quite interesting. The following is not a direct quote from Secretary Bysiewicz but from the context seems to be information she discussed with Times. There is no indication of any other source associated with the information:

In a report after that audit, UConn researchers found, after a hand count, that in at least one race, the machine at a polling place in East Hartford counted six more votes for one candidate than the person had actually received. The discrepancy did not change the outcome, but they warned that it could in the future.

No such problems have turned up in 39 recounts of the Nov. 6 election,

This seems contradictory to the recent news describing recounts that resulted in a change in 17 votes in New Caanan and another error in Riverside that overturned the results. I suppose it depends on what is meant by “No such problems”, these may be different in some ways from those in East Hartford.

Also for the first time we learn that UConn has discovered some issues with the cards tested in the pre-election test. It seems that in some cases either a set of blank cards were sent to registrars or sets inconsistent cards, some blank, were sent to registrars.

Mrs. Bysiewicz said that in addition to reviewing the audit results of this past election, the University of Connecticut audited more than 300 memory cards prior to the election and will audit another batch now that the election is completed. The memory card, which she described as the “brains” of the new machines, posed the biggest security concern for UConn researchers, who warned in October 2006 that if someone gained access to the card, the results of an election could be altered.

Mrs. Bysiewicz said the pre-election audit of the cards found that none of the cards had been tampered with, but that a handful were blank, meaning that they had not been programmed with the proper ballot information.

No report yet on how many blank memory cards were discovered in pre-election testing by the registrars. If the same percentage of 6 out of 300 holds, then if each registrar in 695 towns tested at least two cards then about we could expect that about 28 would have been discovered.

The Middlefield Recount Experience

Different officials gave differing opinions on what was permissible and what was not, but none were willing to make a decision and say with authority what process should be followed…

A story worth reading: <read>

We were chagrined to learn of the proposed ‘second recanvass’ as there was no basis in law for the recanvass, just the Democrat desire to have another one.
This issue of check off list numbers not matching up with ballots is nothing new in any town, as there are a variety of factors at play…
The Secretary of the State’s office is a busy one, no doubt, but their actions in this case left many exasperated. Different officials gave differing opinions on what was permissible and what was not, but none were willing to make a decision and say with authority what process should be followed…
The next day, the Secretary of the State’s office expressed appreciation to the Middlefield Republican officials for not participating in the ‘recanvass’ and told them that it would have been a bad idea.

Meriden Record-Journal: Recounts raise questions about voting machines

Excellent article.  A significant issue is raised.   We will need to carefully review the results of the post-election audits and the recounts.  If the machines regularly fail to accurately count votes with an accuracy well within the mandatory recount level of 0.5% then we will need to set the recount trigger at a significantly higher level.

Despite the rollout of high-tech voting machines in all towns and precincts, errors still turned up during recounts in Wallingford, Southington and elsewhere. In both of those towns, all of the Town Council candidates saw their totals change once the paper ballots had been examined by humans and not just by the optical scanning machines.
Some candidates lost more than one-half of one percent of the total votes cast, which is the threshold for a mandated recount in a close race.
The election results didn’t change, but the system was shown to have flaws.

Also read comments by Rep Lawlor, Andy Sauer of Common Cause, and yours truly:

but at least one voter advocate would like to see that increased. “The chance of an error or fraudulent behavior even being detected is two to four percent in a local race,” said Luther Weeks, executive director of CTVotersCount.org, based on his analysis. “I personally am not satisfied with (that).
“Weeks said he doesn’t expect fraud to happen, but that the standard should be raised in such a way that the state has a one-third chance of catching it if it does. Audits cost pennies per vote, he said.

Read the entire article <read>

TalkNationRadio: Interview with Deputy Secretary of State Lesley Mara on Voting Machine Glitches: Breaking News re LHS Violations and State Elections

Another very informative show <read/listen>

Talk Radio Investigation Into New Voting Technology Reveals Vulnerabilities

Secretary Bysiewicz is taking steps to improve security and procedures with our voting machines. More seals and testing of spare memory cards for most districts by UConn. Yet, the procedures must be clear to election staff and followed unfailingly — a huge challenge when changing so many locations at once, with 169 municipalities with dedicated but predominately very part time election staff. CTVotersCount readers know that the audits remain insufficient to detect errors and deter fraud.
Dori Smith of TalkNationRadio.org covers her investigation of procedures not being followed in 2006, the risks of outsourcing election programming and management, along with potential problems posed by new and conflicting procedures <read>.

Are Connecticut’s new electronic voting machines safe from fraud? A year-long Talk Nation Radio investigation found serious security problems when the machines were first used in some Connecticut towns during the 2006 election. There was chaos at the polls during the 2nd District recount and LHS staff members were refusing to follow the voting machine security protocols drafted by Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz under Chapter 9 of Connecticut law. The 2006 protocols were rushed through, and a year later the state’s new protocols were hastily constructed and are still being updated for the public with the Nov. 6 election right around the corner.

Unintended Consequences – Bridgeport Lockup

Update:Â Supreme Court to intervene <read>

Bridgeport, Conn., Voting Machines “Held Hostage” Says Secretary of State <read>

Judge Blawie has ruled that the primary election results are valid,” said Bysiewicz. “Rep. Caruso is entitled to appeal but he should not hold the city’s voting machines hostage in the process. The actual paper ballots would be available for review if necessary but the voting machines used in the primary should be released now so election officials can prepare them for next week’s general election. Rep. Caruso has the opportunity to help, and ensure that taxpayers are not forced to shell out thousands of dollars to have substitute machines shipped in from out of state.”

Here are some solutions:

  • Borrow the machines from towns not holding elections this year (Federal HAVA funds paid for them)
  • Have a team of representatives of both candidates observe as the memory cards are removed from the scaners and locked up, then reuse the machines.
  • Use paper ballots and hand count the election
  • Use the backup machines for the election, and use paper where the backup machines fail on election day

What has not been mentioned in any reporting, as far as I know, is that Bridgeport was supposed to conduct random post-election audits of the primary by October 1st, and has not because of the machine lockup.

New Britain – Shortage of Election Officials. Questionable Procedures? Short Fuses?

Update 11/3, more arguments <read>, no wonder they are having problems recruiting.

Between pay increases for poll workers and a candidate’s company moving voting machines, New Britain voting officials have had their share of the news lately. Now Rick Guinness reports on a shortage of poll workers, a shortage of cooperation between registrars, and frustration directed at the Secretary of The State <read>

As of Wednesday afternoon, Democrats need one to fill their quota and Republicans needed 27, according to Democratic Registrar of Voters Edward “Butch” Dzwonkowski…

Tensions have risen among voting officials. Staff members in the registrars’ office said [Republican Registrar of Voters Dorothy] Turnrose stormed out of the City Hall basement vault where she, Dzwonkowski and their staffs had been working to secure and store voting machines for Election Day. Turnrose did not show up for work Wednesday after Tuesday’s argument, and she did not return phone calls….

[Mayor Timothy] Stewart said the state thrust new voting machines and laws on cities and towns on the pretext they were more efficient and secure.