By Luther Weeks on April 6, 2016
Most fail to provide information voters need to register and vote
Citizens must be better served and municipalities could save money
From the press release:
April 6, 2016: The Connecticut Citizen Election Audit released a study evaluating election information provided to voters by Connecticut’s 169 municipalities. Information was collected by volunteer evaluators just prior to the 2015 November election.
Citizen Audit spokesperson Luther Weeks stated, “Many towns do not provide the information most sought by voters across Connecticut, such as ‘What is on the ballot?’ or ‘Where do I vote?’. Many failed to inform citizens of online registration, which could increase registration and cut municipal expenses.”
Municipal website findings include:
- Only 33% answered “What is on the ballot?”
- Only 56% answered “Where do I vote?”
- Only 58% provided the date of the next election.
- Only 28% provided registration deadlines.
- 5 provided an incorrect election date.
- 2 provided incorrect registration information.
- 51% had no link to Online Registration. 28% had no link to Online Registration or to a Mail-In Registration form.
- Only 17% posted results of their 2014 election.
- Only 15% provided Voter ID information.
Weeks said, “The Secretary of the State’s web has much of this information, yet studies show that voters go first to their local web. Registration information is important for new voters, and all voters want the election date, ‘Who is on the ballot?’, ‘Where do I vote?’ and voter ID requirements.”
The report also includes recommendations to municipalities, the Secretary of the State, and a low-cost sample website for a whimsical town, http://NutmegtonCT.wordpress.com
<Press Release (.pdf)> <Full Report (.pdf)>
Posted in CT, Reports
By Luther Weeks on February 29, 2016
Again accuracy declined and write-in votes handled incorrectly
November 2015 Post-Election Audit Report
From the Press Release:
The Connecticut Citizen Election Audit has released its report on its observation of the November 2015 official post-election audits. The audits, required by state law, are intended to verify the accuracy of elections at the municipal level.
Citizen Audit spokesperson Luther Weeks stated, “After 9 years of official audits, voters should expect accuracy. Yet the audits have gone from poor to worse.”
The group’s observers found that official audit results do not inspire confidence because of continued:
- Discrepancies between machine counts and hand counts of votes reported to the Secretary of the State by municipal registrars of voters.
- Lack of investigation of such discrepancies, and the lack of standards for triggering investigations.
- Lack of consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit.
- Weaknesses in ballot chain-of-custody and security.
The group’s report noted:
- 28% of official audits cited “Human Error” in counting ballots and votes. Registrars of voters should be expected to take the necessary effort to count accurately.
- Significant decreases in audit integrity, and accuracy.
- In three towns audits detected districts where officials fed write-in ballots through scanners a second time on election night.
- If the group’s recommendations from last year had been mandated and followed, all write-in ballots would have been counted accurately.
“Problems discovered counting write-ins two years in a row shows the value of the official audits. But the report also reveals the decline in official attention to the audits, demonstrating that independent citizen observation and reporting are essential to election integrity.” Weeks emphasized.
<Press Release .pdf> <Full Report pdf> <Detail data/municipal reports>
Posted in CT, Post-Election Audits, Reports
By Luther Weeks on January 28, 2016
Whenever we open a report with multiple recommendations we start from a skeptical point of view. We expect to agree with some proposals and disagree with others. A new report from the Brennan Center for Justice is the exception. We agree with every recommendation:
Election Integrity: A Pro-Voter Agenda
It starts with the right criteria, it has a great agenda, strong supporting arguments, and ends with an appropriate call to action
Posted in Electronic Vulnerability, Internet Voting, Mail/Absentee Voting, National, Post-Election Audits, Reports
By Luther Weeks on January 9, 2016
I have long been a fan of the papers and other writings of Edward B. Foley of the Moritz College of Law. He writes extensively on the issues associated with close elections, how they have been decided since the founding of the United States, and how the process might be improved. Last month his book on the subject, Ballot Battles:The History of Disputed Elections in the United States was released.
To me, it was a highly fascinating read that kept my interest through every page. It should be required reading for anyone interested in Election Integrity
Posted in National, Reports
By Luther Weeks on September 22, 2015
Over the years, we an others have pointed out that voting systems cannot be tested to assure performance before an election. Not the system itself before it is setup/programmed for a particular election. Not a setup and programmed system either. Not even if a system is completely secured and is somehow proven to run approved/certified software.
Here is some proof, not from a voting system – from a crime by an automaker. In this case it only puts the environment and lives in danger, rather than Democracy.
Posted in Electronic Vulnerability, Reports, Skulduggery and Errors
By Luther Weeks on July 15, 2015
The U.S. Vote Foundation has released a report on the feasibility and requirements for Internet voting. This is the result of about eighteen months of work by computer scientists, security experts, and election officials. The goal was to answer definitively once and for all if Internet voting was feasible today or in the future.
The short version is the Internet voting is not ready for prime time, not ready for democracy. Yet, it is possible in the future that a system may be developed which could provide safe Internet voting. The paper lays out the requirements and testing criteria for such a system.
(Internet voting includes online voting, email voting, and fax voting).
Posted in Internet Security Issues, Internet Voting, National, Reports
By Luther Weeks on May 29, 2015
The National Council of State Legislatures has a released a report on voting machines: Elections Technology: Nine Things Legislators May Want to Know
It makes a strong case for the importance of technology in elections, planning, and understanding the details. We especially an additional borrowed list within the report: Ten Things to Know About Selecting a Voting System
Posted in Internet Voting, National, Reports
By Luther Weeks on February 25, 2015
Review of 169 municipal election websites shows election
information lacking, yet easily remedied
From the press release:
February 25, 2015. The Connecticut Citizen Election Audit released a study evaluating election information provided to voters in all 169 municipalities across Connecticut. Information was collected by volunteer evaluators in the days just prior to the 2014 November election.
Citizen Audit spokesperson Luther Weeks stated, “Many towns do not provide the information most sought by voters across Connecticut, such as ‘What is on the ballot’ or ‘Where do I vote?’. Many also failed to inform citizens of online registration, which could have saved citizens time and municipal expenses.”
Municipal website findings include:
- Only 28% answered, “What is on the ballot?”.
- Only 56% provided the “Date of the next election”.
- Only 64% answered “Where do I vote?”
- Only 15% posted results for their 2013 municipal election.
- Many with broken links and obviously outdated information
- Many with up-to-date event calendars and front page bulletins, listing current events, and Ebola preparations, that did not list election-day.
<Full Post and Report>
Posted in CT, Reports
By Luther Weeks on October 29, 2014
When hurricane Sandy hit the east coast, New Jersey exposed the vote and voters to additional risks.
New report from Rutgers:
The Perfect Storm: Voting In New Jersey In The Wake of Superstorm Sandy
Posted in Mail/Absentee Voting, National, Reports
By Luther Weeks on July 22, 2014
A recent post, brought the Carter Center’s report to our attention. Today we highlight Scott M. Fulton’s thoughtful post based on the report.
I look at a chart like this and see a gold mine of potential exploits–handoffs, air-gaps,… How long before such a system is cracked once, someplace in the world?
Posted in Internet Security Issues, Internet Voting, Reports
