Update: Audio is now available of the Nutmeg State update on Voice of the Voters. The Connecticut segment is about 2/3 of the way through just after the weekly update by John Gideon <Audio>
We look forward to more state updates over the coming weeks. So far, Connecticut is the best of the litter. but sadly that only serves to show how far the whole Nation has to go and the risks to democracy we face in November.
Summary report prepared before the broadcast:
The good news in Connecticut is that:
- We have a paper trail law passed in 2005
- We use optical scanners in every polling place
- We have a post-election audit bill passed in 2007
- We organize citizens to observe and report on the audits after every election
- Under contract with the state, the University of Connecticut has developed a program to test memory cards for errors and fraud, which has been used for random testing
- The Secretary of the State’s Office is open to suggestions and the Secretary has agreed to our #1 proposition of an Independent Audit Board.
The not so good news in Connecticut:
- Observations of the audits have shown that they are: insufficient, unreliable and ineffective. There are many loopholes and chain-of-custody lapses.
- Discrepancies uncovered in the audits were all excused away. They should have been investigated. If we explain everything away, if there ever was an error or fraud it would not be recognized.
- UConn tests of the memory cards are not done consistently. But what has been done has shown that less than half of the election officials followed pre-election testing procedures.
- This year we had a bill to improve the audits passed unanimously by a committee in the legislature but despite support by the Secretary of the State it was not even brought up in the full House or Senate.
- There are questions whether violations of procedures, regulations, or directives from the Secretary of the State are enforceable in court or by our Elections Enforcement Commission.
- Like most New England States we have a system of local management of elections by two elected registrars of voters in each of our 169 towns. They like to do it their own way following or ignoring regulations and procedures. Based on testimony in a public hearing, one legislator characterized it as the “Wild West”.
