Skulduggery and Errors | CTVotersCount.org

New Registrar and Two Databases add to campaign dustup

Fred DeCaro III, the Republican registrar of voters, said two separate databases have been used by the town over the years to record votes and one wasn’t checked when his office received its first inquiry on McMahon in September.

CTPost Article: All eyes on McMahon’s voting record in Greenwich <read>

Linda McMahon’s campaign says it has new evidence debunking a claim by chief GOP Senate rival Rob Simmons that she has only showed up to vote in two elections in her hometown of Greenwich.

The campaign furnished Greenwich Time Monday with a letter from the assistant Republican registrar of voters vouching that McMahon voted in the November elections in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008 and 2009…

“Rob Simmons allowed his campaign to peddle false and misleading attacks against Linda even after they knew their claims were false,” said Ed Patru, a spokesman for McMahon. “That’s a commentary on his character, it undermines a core line of attack he’s been using against Linda, and it damages his credibility.”…

A Sept. 23 letter from the same deputy registrar, Ruby Durant, was the basis for the campaign’s earlier claims that McMahon had only voted in the 2002 and 2008 general elections, according to Shah…

Fred DeCaro III, the Republican registrar of voters, said two separate databases have been used by the town over the years to record votes and one wasn’t checked when his office received its first inquiry on McMahon in September.

“I’m confident that at the very least she voted the number of times in (the Dec. 22) letter,” said DeCaro, who has only been in office for a year. “Obviously, it’s important, and we want to make sure we have the right information.”

We note with interest the overlap of the dates that the original list was 2002 and 2008 while the second list was 2000, 2002, 2004, 2008, and 2009. We would normally expect the shorter list to have come from one database of the two and that it would have included only the earliest or the latest dates. Could they have alternated databases rather than replacing one with the other?

Integrity and Credibility in Massachusetts

Stories from the Detroit< FreePress and BradBlog about the possibility of the election in Massachusetts being stolen by Democrats or Republicans <BradBlog> <FreePress>

From BradBlog:

The near-entirety of the state will vote next Tuesday on paper ballots to be counted by Diebold op-scan systems. The same ones used dubiously in the New Hampshire Primary in 2008, and the same ones notoriously hacked — resulting in a flipped mock election — in HBO’s Emmy-nominated Hacking Democracy.

And to make matters even worse, the notorious LHS Associates — the private company with the criminal background that has admitted to illegally tampering with memory cards during elections, and which has a Director of Sales and Marketing who embarrassed himself with obscene comments here at The BRAD BLOG some years ago, resulting in his being barred from CT by their Sec. of State — sells and services almost all of MA’s voting machines along with those in the rest of New England.

From the FreePress:

In Massachusetts, a recount only occurs if the final results are less than half of one percent, and as election reform activist John Bonifaz points out, Massachusetts does not require random audits of the computerized vote counting machines to compare the computer results to the optical scan ballots marked by the voters. Bonifaz notes that in the Al Franken-Norm Coleman Minnesota Senate race in 2008, “everything was ultimately hand-counted.” The problem in Massachusetts hinges on whether the race is close enough to trigger a recount, which candidates can peition for within thirty days…

Given the Democratic party’s astonishing lack of leadership on so many issues, it is entirely possible that Scott Brown could legitimately beat Martha Coakley in this election.

But it is also possible that the outcome could be manipulated by the companies in control of the registration rolls and vote counts. It will be up to citizen election protection activists to make sure that doesn’t happen yet again.

Perhaps the election will be close, less than 0.5% with a very careful recount or a runaway for one side or the other. But otherwise the 1st casualty will be credibility. No matter who wins there are likely to be unsatisfactorily answered questions. Massachusetts, like all states, needs effective, credible post-election audits along with a strong, transparent chain-of-custody. Ironically Massachusetts has paper ballots and was used as proof of the reliability of Diebold equipment and LHS service, because no problems had been discovered after years of use – but without post-election audits how would problems be recognized?

Detroit: The Limitations of Paper Ballots and Recounts

The value of paper ballots and recounts depends on the chain-of-custody and the integrity of election officials. Bev Harris reports in a letter the almost unbelievable, sad situation in a Detroit Mayoral race recount

From: Bev Harris
Subject: BBV Bulletin: DETROIT – CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION REQUESTED FOR ELECTIONS VIOLATIONS

…Ex-candidate Tom Barrow has filed a formal request for investigation along with stunning documentation of chain of custody breach in the recent Detroit mayoral election. Black Box Voting has been in close contact with Barrow, and we will be reviewing additional documents related to this case. The allegations are fascinating…

the full complaint and its accompanying Exhibit provides a pretty good primer for citizens and candidates who want to watchdog elections. Full details of the 79-point complaint…

#13 – Throughout the day, O’Hara, McDonald and Butler reported observing numerous individuals with large bags and back packs entering and remaining in the absentee counting station area. They also reported that at 8pm, the counting room security completely broke down and the general public was permitted to freely access the restricted access areas

# 23 – three people from ES&S, (the voting equipment computer company) had just signed in at 7:55 am along with one more individual from Premier. [note that the location uses ES&S machines, but not Premier machines; why were technicians entering the building, and why was anyone from Premier there at all?] …

# 44. … notwithstanding the seal differences, nearly all of the cases opened were disallowed and deemed not able to be recounted because there were significant discrepancies between the number of voters in the poll books and the number of voter ballots in the case along with other violations. # 48. Now broadly suspicious, Complainant without anyone’s knowledge created his own informal security system to reveal to him of any breaches to the building after hours…

# 74. Finally, on Monday, December 21, 2009, Complainant and his Team arrived at the recount location to obtain an explanation of why numerous time clocks on numerous polling computers showed dates and times which seemingly indicated that the polls had been electronically closed hours before the statutory required 8pm poll closing time…

# 76. Complainant immediately confronted county recount election staff who called the weekend security guard. After speaking with the guard in full sight of the room of observers, Ms Cynthia Hawthorne, explained to the room of over 30 people that the guard just admitted to her that 2 people had indeed come to the door, the door was opened and the guard invited the strangers in and allowed them to tour the “secure” area … Footnote # (10) Indeed, precinct 20-04 [certified as having hundreds of ballots] was an empty case with no voted, unused or spoiled ballots inside.

Detroit seems blatant, however, it takes just one failure in ballot integrity to bring an election result into question. We have our own chain-of-custody issues in Connecticut as well: <Haddam> <Coalition Audit Report>

Courant: Ballot Access Should Require Two People Of Opposing Parties

“The process was corrupted. When you go by yourselves, just you two, it gives the appearance of impropriety.”

We believe that ballots cannot be trusted unless there is a strong chain of custody, one critical part of that is that all access should be by at least two people and of opposing parties, and opposing interests in primaries. The Courant is right on in their editorial covering the Haddam situation <read>

when town offices were closed for Veterans Day, head election moderator Marge DeBold, a Democrat, found a clerical error in the absentee vote count that added an additional vote to Ms. Houlton’s total. That extra vote would throw the results into a tie, which would require a runoff election. The following day, Democratic Registrar Pat Hess authorized Ms. DeBold and Town Clerk Ann Huffstetler, also a Democrat, to open the sealed envelopes containing the ballots to review the tally sheets and amend the recount.

But there were no Republicans present. That was wrong…

Mr. Harris, the initial winner of the recount, summed it up well: “The process was corrupted. When you go by yourselves, just you two, it gives the appearance of impropriety.”

The Courant’s earlier coverage and our comments <read> Coaliton reports documenting breaches in the chain of custody <read> The issue goes beyond a documented instance of two people from the same party accessing the ballots. The issue includes the risks of single individuals having access to a single key needed to access the ballots – leaving them vulnerable to unauthorized access.

Chain-Of-Custody Education In Haddam

A tight Board of Education race in Haddam provides an example four understanding chain-of-custody and recounts vs. recanvasses.
* The chain-of-custody is important and its enforcement is important
* Every vote is important, counting every vote accurately, transparently, and credibly is critical to democracy
* Recounts and recount laws are important

A tight Board of Education race in Haddam provides an example four understanding chain-of-custody and recounts vs. recanvasses. Courant story: Dispute Over Recount In Haddam Board Of Education Race <read>

Republicans said they plan to call the secretary of the state’s office today to ask officials to investigate confusion about the vote for a seat on the board of eduction. Democrats, who say there is no confusion, called a meeting Tuesday evening to sort out the issue. A dozen Democrats and Republicans met, but left without reaching a consensus.

Democrats say the following occurred:

The unofficial vote count after the Nov. 3 election showed Republican Chester Harris beating Democratic incumbent Sabrina Houlton by one vote. Because of the slim margin, the town held a recount Nov. 10, which showed the same result.

The next day, when town offices were closed for Veterans Day, election head moderator Marge DeBold, a former Democratic first selectman, was reviewing the election information and found a clerical error. She noticed that next to Houlton’s name on the absentee vote count were four tally marks and the number “3.” DeBold said she realized that someone had miscounted the marks as three instead of four.

The next day, DeBold told Democratic Registrar Pat Hess what she had found. Hess authorized DeBold and Town Clerk Ann Huffstetler, also a Democrat, to open the sealed envelopes containing the ballots to review the tally sheets and to amend the recount.

Hess said Tuesday that she knew representatives from both parties needed to be present during all vote-counting procedures, but the GOP registrar could not attend that morning and they wanted to get the new tallies quickly to file the proper paperwork with the secretary of the state’s office. She said there was no intentional wrongdoing.

The additional vote for Houlton meant the race was a tie. State law mandates that the town must hold a runoff election between tied candidates. The election will be Tuesday.

Earlier Tuesday, GOP Town Chairman Kenneth Gronbach alleged that the three Democrats — DeBold, Hess and Huffstetler — had tampered with votes.

“This isn’t Afghanistan. This is the United States of America,” Gronbach said. “It’s a conspiracy. The vote was changed; sealed documents were opened and altered.”

By Tuesday evening, he said he wasn’t accusing anyone of fraud, but would file a complaint with the State Elections Enforcement Commission and would file an injunction to prevent Tuesday’s election. He said that the last legal step in the process was the initial recount, and that its result is the one that should count.

Houlton argued that the mistake needed to be fixed, adding, “If that’s what the voters really want, then the runoff will speak to that.”

Harris said the issue “is that the process was corrupted. When you go by yourselves, just you two, it gives the appearance of impropriety.”

We also viewed a news report on WFSB-TV last night covering a meeting of Haddam officials and the actual hashmark sheet involved.

What can we learn from this?

The chain-of-custody is important and its enforcement is important
Every vote is important, counting every vote accurately, transparently, and credibly is critical to democracy
Recounts and recount laws are important

The chain-of-custody is important and its enforcement is important

The credibility of the election process is dependent on a strong chain-of-custody to protect the ballots and associated election materials so that recanvasses, recounts, and post-election audits will be accurate and trusted. In Haddam we have a classic situation where the evidence of the election has been called into question. There are two additional problems here. First, even if there was no tampering with votes or hashmark sheets candidates and the public cannot trust the process, lose faith in their government, and have to settle for a new election.

A new election is a fine solution for an actual election tie, and would be a necessary remedy for a compromised election. But it is not as good for a compromised election as performing the original election as intended. A new election is costly to candidates and taxpayers. Also it brings out a different group of voters and may or may not produce the same result as ab original election with integrity would have.

Unfortunately, in Connecticut, election laws, regulations, procedures and common sense are often not followed. The Coaltion Post-Election Audit Reports have documented many lapses in procedures, including the chain-of-custody. It is quite possible that in this case there was a violation of state law subject to enforcement, as the registrar points out “Hess said Tuesday that she knew representatives from both parties needed to be present during all vote-counting procedures”. In our experience most violations of the chain-of-custody are not discovered, not enforced, and not enforceable. Part of the problem is that, in Connecticut, only laws are enforceable, leaving regulations and procedures unenforceable – our ballots are only protected by law for fouteen days after the election, such that violations of procedures and common sense observed during the post-election audits are not enforceable.

The actual problem goes much deeper than this incident and the law. Common sense would imply that access to ballots should require at a minimum: access by two individuals with opposing interests, logging of all access, and systems to assure that violations of such access were prevented. In many states counties run elections and hold ballots in vaults, covered by 24×7 survelence and guards etc. In Connecticut, in most towns (according to Coalition surveys) either registrar has access to a key to ballot storage; in many towns any employee in the registrars’ office has such access; in others additional town employees including school janitors. The seals used for ballots in Connecticut can be compromised in a matter of minutes or seconds – they are useful but do not protect the ballots sufficiently when they can be accessed by individuals for extended periods.

Two years ago, I asked a security expert if I was being too hard in expecting Connecticut to follow stronger chain-of-custody procedures. He pointed out that officials should not want such open access as it would open them to potential questions of tampering – that they would be unable to refute. Case in point Haddam, even though many will trust the word of the officials, there will always be a lingering doubt.

Every vote is important, counting every vote accurately, transparently, and credibly is critical to democracy.

Time to reiterate the importance of every vote, the accuracy of every registration, the work to make sure every voter has a full opportunity within the law to vote, counting every absentee vote, every qualified provisional ballot, military and overseas ballot.

Also making sure that every effort is expended to properly reject ballots and unqualified voters and votes. To take reasonable steps to prevent fraud, such as avoiding internet voting, and penalizing fraud.

To voters: Make sure you vote. Carefully consider the risks of absentee voting or mail-in voting before you subject your vote to the added risk of fraud or error in such votes.

Recounts and recount laws are important.

I did not attend and can find no specific news reports of the Haddam ‘recount’, but unless it was unusual it likely conformed to the Connecticut close vote ‘recanvass’ law and procedures. As we have pointed out in the past there is a huge difference between a recount as conducted in some other states and the ‘recanvass’ conducted in Connecticut. <Our Comparison w/Minnesota>

Recanvasses may sufice to uncover significant transcription and arithmetic errors and a poorly tuned scanner. But when it comes down to one or two ballots in a district or perhaps a handfull in a town recanvass procedures may not be accurate enough. Here we have a one or zero ballot margin. In the Haddam race, just like a recent recanvass we attended that was judged a tie, one ballot can make a difference. One hashmark made under the wrong candidate. One vote misspoken or misunderstood. One apparent undervote that was actually a vote for a candidate. One ballot with identifying markings, but missed – such ballots should not be counted in Connecticut. One overvote not detected when counting ballots in multi-vote races. Every part of the process should be verified by two people to avoid simple errors like an incorrect count of hasmarks, transcription, or addition errors. The only reliable way we know is for mutiple officials to check every ballot on both sides, with candididate representatives watching; multiple officials checking every aspect including tallying. It is not a matter of official integrity or misconduct, it is to count with a level of precision equal to the closeness of the election.

Retail Fraud – A Stitch In Time Could Save Democracy

So, in Hartford, it seems that nothing is wrong with a little tax evasion a “lot of people” do it. It seems that voting fraud is regarded as almost in that same category except we don’t really know if a “lot of people” and officials do it or not. Maybe it is treated casually elsewhere in Connecticut and around the country. This is one of the two reasonse we are against expanded mail-in voting which includes no-excuse absentee voting – at a minimum it will mean more retail fraud and more voters unknowingly disenfranchised.

Update: Looks like the changes will be difficult to confirm and maybe there is nothing behind them <read>

***********

There is no agreement on the demarcation between retail vote fraud and wholesale vote fraud. In general retail fraud represents fraud that involves individual voters and individual votes, while wholesale fraud would represent fraud an a large scale by insiders or hackers. Everyone would agree that forging a handful of ballots would be retail fraud and that misprogramming voting machines would be wholesale fraud. The middle ground comes when in a statewide election an official in a single town substitutes or votes a few dozen ballots, or in a Presidential election one hacker changes the results on a single polling place machine.

Sometimes the existence of retail fraud is denied, ignored, or almost dismissed. We tend to think it dosen’t happen, accept it as part of the system, or believe that it does not matter. Two stories in Connecticut this week seem to conform to these views:

New Haven Register: Alderman alleges voter fraud <read>

In a complaint filed this week with the state Elections Enforcement Commission, Alderman Greg Morehead, D-22 accuses write-in opponent Lisa Hopkins of applying for and filling out absentee ballots against the wishes of voters, allegations Hopkins says are not true.

Hopkins lost to Morehead by eight votes in a hotly contested Democratic primary in September. She returned in the general election as a write-in candidate, securing 194 votes to Morehead’s 237. More than half of Hopkins’ votes, 107, came from absentee ballots. Morehead received 24 absentee ballot votes, records show.

In his complaint, Morehead alleges Hopkins told an elderly voter to hand Hopkins a signed absentee ballot before selecting a candidate. Morehead claims Hopkins told the voter she would complete the form.

In a close race with a margin of eight votes two alleged cases of fraud. If true, that could cut the margin to four. And this would be just the fraud discovered by this one candidate – if true, what are the odds there was more fraud?

To vote by absentee ballot, voters must show they are unable to make it to the polls on Election Day. “We don’t have ‘no excuse’ absentee ballot voting,” said Av Harris, spokesman for the Office of the Secretary of the State.

To be eligible, voters must show they will be out of state on Election Day, have an illness or physical disability that prevents them from getting to a polling place, or have a religious reason why they cannot vote on Election Day.

Voters must swear in an affidavit that they personally filled out the ballot. There may be rare circumstances in which a voter’s disability requires that someone fill out their ballot for them, but “it has to be a pretty compelling reason,” Harris said.

Absentee ballot fraud is not common, he said.

We agree that you need to have an excuse or lie to vote absentee ballot in Connecticut. We are not so sure that absentee ballot fraud is uncommon – maybe, maybe not – here is a recent story on three instances of absentee very retail voting fraud <read> And another from a while back <read page 1>

Here is another story this week showing how little we regard the seriousness of absentee ballot fraud. The Hartford Courant: Tax Troubles At City Hall <read>

Four years ago, Hartford Democratic operative Prenzina Holloway was fined $10,000 for absentee ballot fraud. But state officials allowed her to pay only $2,000 of the fine because she demonstrated financial hardship.

Yet a year and a half later, the apparently financially strapped Ms. Holloway bought a used Hummer for $31,727, state motor vehicle records show. According to city records, she never paid city taxes on the Hummer. She owes Hartford $3,500.

But she did draw a city paycheck recently for a one-week stint in the registrar of voters’ office — a temporary job she shouldn’t have been given because of her unsavory ballot-fraud past.

And the delinquent taxes? That seems to present no problem to Ms. Holloway’s daughter, rJo Winch, who just happens to be Democratic majority leader of the Hartford city council. “A lot of people in city hall owe the city money,” sniffed Ms. Winch.

How To NOT Instill Confidence In Election Integrity

one of the voting machines had broken down Tuesday evening, forcing poll workers to switch to a separate machine to count the remaining ballots. Some of the ballots had been photocopied because election officials believed they had run out of the official ballots. It was later revealed that officials had more than 1,000 unused ballots locked in the registrar of voters’ office.

Waterbury Republican: Ex-first selectman has lawyer probe Middlebury voting <read>

MIDDLEBURY — Former First Selectman Edward B. St. John has hired an attorney to investigate ballot irregularities in the Nov. 3 election.

Dennis M. Buckley, a Waterbury-based attorney, is reviewing documents filed by poll workers and election officials for St. John.

St. John, who ran as a write-in candidate, raised concerns immediately following the election after he learned one of the voting machines had broken down Tuesday evening, forcing poll workers to switch to a separate machine to count the remaining ballots. Some of the ballots had been photocopied because election officials believed they had run out of the official ballots. It was later revealed that officials had more than 1,000 unused ballots locked in the registrar of voters’ office.

“He wants to know what they should have done and what they did do,” Buckley said Wednesday. “Obviously, the only thing Mr. St. John has been able to do up until this point is listen to hearsay.”

Buckley said he plans to contact the Secretary of the State’s Office about the photocopied ballots, which were single-sided and did not have instructions on how to fill in the ballots for write-in candidates, something St. John has said could have hurt his candidacy.

MA: Talk – A Poor Substitute For Integrity?

Don’t Count Your Ballots Up in Massachusetts. That Sort Of Thing Just Isn’t Done.

Jammed voting machine misses six ballots in close race. We say “Maybe, maybe not”.

Don’t Count Your Ballots Up in Massachusetts. That Sort Of Thing Just Isn’t Done.

Story in the Eagle-Tribune about Methuen, MA: Jammed voting machine misses six ballots in close race <read> We say “Maybe, maybe not”.

Here is the summary from the City Clerk Christine Touma-Conway:

“The integrity of the process is being proven by the fact that we’ve discovered this and are talking about it,” Touma-Conway said. “That’s why we have all these checks and double checks and triple checks.”

What exactly did they discover?

the number of voters checked in and out was six higher than the number of ballots counted by the AccuVote voting machine. That leads Touma-Conway to believe six votes weren’t counted.

That could be true, however, its also possible that 6 voters walked out without voting. Or perhaps an error was made in the check-in process. Did the machine jam and lose votes? We use the same machines in Connecticut and have instructions for election officials to handle jams such that votes are counted once and only once – it would be quite an exception if the same human error were made six times in the same polling place — yet it could happen. Here is what is reported:

The machine read 762 ballots, but 768 voters checked in and out at Precinct 7. The box containing the ballots is sealed, so officials don’t know for certain whether there are in fact 768 ballots in there, but Touma-Conway expects there is.

Voting machines regularly become jammed temporarily, resulting in one or two votes not being counted, but that usually doesn’t affect an election because the votes usually aren’t as close as the result between Kazanjian and Henrick. Plus, it’s rare for as many as six votes to go uncounted, Touma-Conway said.

Hum, perhaps they lose votes from jamming. MA has more experience with these machines, yet how do they know? Massachusetts does not have a post-election audit. But what does it matter if we lose six votes in an election? Should every voters vote really count?

This adds a new twist to the School Committee election saga, where incumbent Kenneth Henrick placed just five votes ahead of his friend and fellow incumbent George Kazanjian.

We often criticize Connecticut for having an inadequate recanvass law that falls short of a true recount, but at least we do an automatic recanvass when the election is close. Despite our criticism of the weaknesses and inefficiencies in our post-election audit law, we do have one. When questions arise situations similar to this one, the Secretary of the State’s office often refers the situations to the UConn VoTeR Center for research and actual factual answers.

Hartford Advocate: A New Day? [For Elections Enforcement]

Views of elections enforcement from Representative Chris Caruso and SEEC Director Al Lenge.

Hartford Advocate article on State Elections Enforcement Commission (SEEC) and criticism of its history of enforcement: A New Day? Critics hope a new head of the state’s Elections Enforcement Commission will be tougher on corrupt politicians <read>

Jeffrey B. Garfield just retired as head of Connecticut’s Elections Enforcement Commission, ending more than 30 years as the official watchdog of our campaign laws.

In theory, Garfield was an ever-vigilant guardian ready to rip the entrails out of any scum-sucking politician who violated our sacred election system.

In reality, Garfield and the EEC more often played the role of flaccid, placid lapdog than ass-chewing election Rottweiler, particularly when it came to incumbent state elected officials.

Garfield’s departure has triggered gushing praise for his long service as well as questions about how effective his enforcement efforts were in the past and whether recent reforms will be able to prevent abuses in the future…

Garfield’s replacement, Albert P. Lenge, insists recent reforms have already made the EEC a tougher, more effective agency. “It’s a brand new day,” Lenge said this week. Let’s hope so…

The EEC seemed more eager to go after challengers and municipal officials than to take on the people who controlled the commission’s budget. The commission almost never launched an investigation on its own, preferring to wait for formal complaints. Garfield said the commission didn’t have the resources to go out looking for violators.

Proof of how weak the enforcement was came in an eruption of federally prosecuted corruption cases that included convictions of ex-Gov. John G. Rowland, Silvester, ex-Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim and ex-state Sen. Ernest Newton III. Those scandals finally led in 2005 to passage of public campaign financing and reforms intended to insulate the commission’s enforcement arm from political pressure.

“Had they [Garfield and the EEC] been stronger, had the whistle been blown sooner, you probably wouldn’t have seen the level of corruption that came about,” said state Rep. Chris Caruso, a Bridgeport Democrat who formerly served as co-chairman of the legislature’s Government Administration and Elections Committee…

Lenge, who served as the commission’s deputy director and general counsel since 1995, doesn’t agree with many criticisms of the EEC’s past performance and also argues recent reforms have made the agency even stronger…

“Those were strong enforcement actions,” said Lenge. Caruso thinks the penalties should have been much heavier.

“There’s been a tradition within the EEC to level fines of a few thousand dollars on sitting state officials,” said Caruso. “In public opinion, really those are slaps on the wrist.”

Lenge says the emphasis on bigger fines ignores the effect an EEC reprimand can have on an incumbent’s reelection. “Just a finding [of wrongdoing] or a reprimand sometimes sends a strong message,” Lenge said.

He also disputes there was ever an EEC tactic of going after easy targets like local or challenge candidates.

Lenge said creation of an enforcement unit that is insulated from the director and the rest of the EEC staff has made the agency more independent and more likely to take on powerful incumbents. He also argues the commission has lots more resources now, with a staff that’s grown from seven in 1995 to 52 today. The EEC is now auditing every single 2008 legislative campaign and will initiate investigations if need be.

In the past we have criticized the speed of the SEEC and the Legislature because election regulations and procedures are not enforceable by the SEEC, leaving little room for holding election officials to account for lapses in the conduct of elections and audits.

Low Tech, Computer Hack

Just a little reminder that we can have all the physical security, encryption, open source, and source disclosure in the world. Yet, there are still low tech ways to hack systems available to high school “D students”.

Update: Nationwide: Computers Increase Students’ Temptation To Cheat

Two Manchester High School students breached the school district’s computer system and altered grades and attendance records, police said Tuesday.

The incident remains under investigation.

Police said the students learned the user name and password to the system from watching a school administrator log in.

They changed grades and attendance records multiple times over the past two weeks, police said. One of the students changed a grade from a D to a C, police said. Another student discovered what they were doing and told a school official about it.

Update: 10/30/2009 Courant: Nationwide: Computers Increase Students’ Temptation To Cheat <read>

More evidenced that it does not take researcg at Princeton or UConn to cheat with computers. Are registrars any more savvy than school administrators in preventing and detecting fraud?

Much of it is using computers for cheating, but some is hacking:

There’s nothing new about cheating, said Lt. James Wardwell, a computer forensics expert with the New Britain Police Department, “and the computer is just another tool to help someone accomplish a bad deed.”

What is new is that cheating in America’s high schools has become “rampant, and it’s getting worse,” according to a 2008 nationwide survey by the Josephson Institute, the California-based nonprofit organization that runs the Character Counts! youth ethics program in schools in Connecticut and throughout the country.

The survey of 30,000 high school students found that 64 percent said they had cheated on a test during the past year, up from 60 percent in 2006. The survey did not address school computer hacking, but 36 percent of respondents said they had used the Internet to plagiarize an assignment, an increase from 33 percent in 2006.

Some students have been lured into cyber-cheating by the apparent cloak that computers and personal communication devices provide, Michael Josephson, president of the ethics institute, said. Armed with stolen information, kids can enter school record systems from their bedrooms, or they can photograph copies of tests with their cellphones and send them to others who have to take the same test…

Newspaper reports from throughout the country show that the methods students use to crack school computer programs range from simply watching a school staff member entering a password — the method used in Manchester, according to police — to sneaking spyware onto school computers. “Key-logger” programs, for instance, record all strokes on a computer keyboard and send a record to another computer.

In some cases, cyber-cheating students have lifted user names and passwords from hard copy lists left in school offices. Some school staff members use their own names, or slightly altered variations, as passwords, enabling a student to enter a grading or attendance site after a few guesses.

That was the case in Naples, Fla., recently, where police say a 16-year-old boy slipped into school district computers by guessing an employee’s password. The boy was then able to change the grades of five or six students, according to Florida news reports.