Verified Voting writes Secretary Merrill supporting Citizen Audit’s call for expanded audits

The Verified Voting Foundation has written a letter to Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill, supporting expanded audits based on Connecticut’s expansion of absentee ballots: <read> Their support was based on the Citizen Audit’s recent Op-Ed. in the CTMirror.

The Verified Voting Foundation has written a letter to Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill, supporting expanded audits based on Connecticut’s expansion of absentee ballots: <read> Their support was based on the Citizen Audit’s recent Op-Ed. in the CTMirror.

Verified Voting writes concerning the exclusion of absentee ballots from Connecticut’s post-election audit. Connecticut made the right decision for election integrity when the state passed legislation in 2007 mandating post-election audits. Christopher Krebs, director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, recently testified that “the ability to conduct post-election audits is critical to establishing the integrity of the election.” Unfortunately, the anticipated massive surge of absentee ballots in 2020 threatens the credibility of the audit. As you know, Connecticut generally exempts absentee ballots, along with hand-counted ballots and election day registration ballots, from its audit. We urge you to broaden the audit this year to include absentee ballots…

An audit’s credibility depends on whether the audit sample is reasonably representative of all ballots cast. Excluding absentee ballots is undesirable even when they comprise less than ten percent of ballots cast…

We understand the pressures facing state and local election officials this year. Fortunately, as Luther Weeks of Connecticut Citizen Election Audit has pointed out, Connecticut’s machine-assisted audit system can facilitate conducting audits that include absentee ballots…

An increase in absentee voting inevitably will raise questions about ballot handling, adjudication, and security as well as tabulation. Accordingly, we agree with Weeks that an independent audit of all absentee ballot processes, culminating in tabulation, should take place.

Read the entire letter here: <read>

A small hole in ballot packages, is a huge gap in security

Last week Kevin Rennie blogged about a letter from the leader of the Municipal Clerks Association sent to the clerks. Information that should have come from the Secretary of the State warning about problems and misinformation about the mailing of ballot packages to voters. Information that should have gone to voters not just clerks: Merrill Failure: 20,000 Voters Will Not Receive Absentee Ballots. Town Clerks Will Try to Solve Primary Crisis. Unglued, Too. Ballots May Fall Out of Envelopes. There is plenty of disappointment in the post and letter, yet I will concentrate on one item of advice to the clerks:

Additionally, I have been informed that the sides of some inner envelopes have not been properly glued shut by the manufacturer; as a result, the voter’s ballot could slip out of the inner envelope while the town clerk is processing the returns into CVRS. This issue is not related to the voter accidentally slicing open the envelope. It is due to poor quality control at the mail house. Please be on the lookout for envelopes that are not sealed on the side. Please tape the defective inner envelopes shut.

This may appear to be insignificant. Yet it is a big deal. There are reasons for an inner envelope, especially in this election.

Last week Kevin Rennie blogged about a letter from the leader of the Municipal Clerks Association sent to the clerks. Information that should have come from the Secretary of the State warning about problems and misinformation about the mailing of ballot packages to voters. Information that should have gone to voters not just clerks: Merrill Failure: 20,000 Voters Will Not Receive Absentee Ballots. Town Clerks Will Try to Solve Primary Crisis. Unglued, Too. Ballots May Fall Out of Envelopes.<read> There is plenty of disappointment in the post and letter, yet I will concentrate on one item of advice to the clerks:

Additionally, I have been informed that the sides of some inner envelopes have not been properly glued shut by the manufacturer; as a result, the voter’s ballot could slip out of the inner envelope while the town clerk is processing the returns into CVRS. This issue is not related to the voter accidentally slicing open the envelope. It is due to poor quality control at the mail house. Please be on the lookout for envelopes that are not sealed on the side. Please tape the defective inner envelopes shut.

This may appear to be insignificant. Yet it is a big deal. There are reasons for an inner envelope, especially in this election.

Outer envelopes are usually opened on election day by election officials of both parties,  supervised by a Polling Place Moderator or a Central Count Absentee Ballot Moderator. In those usual cases everything is under  the observation of multiple officials and open to observation of voters in the polling place or at the central count location. Not this year! The outer envelope is opened by the clerk’s staff and separated from the inner envelope in advance of election day. The purpose is to reduce the work on Election Day.

There are serious unintended consequences:

  • There are no known, published official procedures for the opening of the envelopes by the clerks, no standards for the security of the ballots, and no formal requirements for public observation.
  • CT has very weak to non-existent standards for ballot security. There is no monitoring of such security. Other states have much stronger standards. E.g. in CO all the areas where ballots or election equipment is under video surveillance for weeks before and after an election. (Even so a clerk was caught on video messing with ballots between an election and a recount. An election where she was on the ballot. She won the recount after losing the initial count.) In NM ballots are kept in metal containers, with two padlocks, one key sent to the clerk and one to a judge by different polling place officials.
  • The clerks’ offices also have free access to blank ballots. There are no such ballots available at central count absentee locations.
  • So lets spell it out:
    • The clerks’ staff could examine ballots with open envelopes that were not properly glued and replace them with ballots with votes for a different candidate.
    • They could un-glue additional envelopes and mark them as if they were not originally sealed correctly.
    • The clerks staff, perhaps loan individuals, perhaps others in town hall could access inner envelopes any time after they are opened until they are turned over to the registrars on Election Day.

The vast majority of election officials, clerks, clerks’ staff, and town hall employees are of high integrity. Yet clerks and registrars, even in Connecticut, have committed crimes with absentee ballots and regular ballots. And they are all very trusting of their staffs and often apparently ignorant of the risks of poor ballot security. According to security experts, overconfidence in security is a primary sign of risk.

There are lots of holes in our ballot security. This is just one novel example spelled out for your consideration and concern.

Moreover, the result is deservedly less confidence in the integrity of our elections.

Charles Stewart reminds us that mail-in may disenfranchise more than it adds in turnout

In this COVID crisis, I support mail-in voting for all. However, for years we have been warning of the downsides of absentee voting: It usually decreases turnout, it as a frequent path for insider and political operative fraud, and it disenfranchises. A new paper by MIT Professor Charles Stewart documents that disenfranchisement in the 2016 Presidential Election: Reconsidering Lost Votes by Mail

Conceptually, the paper highlights how differing mail-ballot legal regimes produce lost mail votes in different ways, and at different rates, on account of differing laws, regulations, and practices…That estimate works out to approximately 1.4 million votes in 2016—4.0% of mail ballots cast and 1.0% of all ballots. These estimates are relevant in light of efforts to expand mail balloting in the 2020 presidential election. States that will see the greatest growth in mail ballots tended to have higher lost vote rates than those with vote-by-mail systems. This implies that a doubling or tripling of the number of mail ballots in 2020 will result in a disproportionate growth in the number of lost votes due to mail ballots.

Connecticut is on track to increase its mail-in balloting by 10x to 15x by November. That means 10x – 15x the number of voters disenfranchised by mail-in voting.

 

In this COVID crisis, I support mail-in voting for all. However, for years whave been warning of the downsides of absentee voting: It usually decreases turnout, it as a frequent path for insider and political operative fraud, and it disenfranchises. A new paper by MIT Professor Charles Stewart documents that disenfranchisement in the 2016 Presidential Election: Reconsidering Lost Votes by Mail <read>

Conceptually, the paper highlights how differing mail-ballot legal regimes produce lost mail votes in different ways, and at different rates, on account of differing laws, regulations, and practices…That estimate works out to approximately 1.4 million votes in 2016—4.0% of mail ballots cast and 1.0% of all ballots. These estimates are relevant in light of efforts to expand mail balloting in the 2020 presidential election. States that will see the greatest growth in mail ballots tended to have higher lost vote rates than those with vote-by-mail systems. This implies that a doubling or tripling of the number of mail ballots in 2020 will result in a disproportionate growth in the number of lost votes due to mail ballots.

Disenfranchisement varies by State, based on many factors that include laws and practices.

The calculation of lost votes in mail elections focuses on summing up six quantities:

1. Requests for mail ballots that are not received by the election authorities.

2. Absentee ballot requests that are unfulfilled by election authorities.

3. Absentee ballots transmitted by election authorities that are not received by the voter.

4. Absentee ballots returned by the voter but not received by the election authorities.

5. Returned absentee ballots that are rejected by election authorities.

6. Tabulated mail ballots that fail to record the choice(s) made by the voter, i.e., residual votes.

Connecticut is on track to increase its mail-in balloting by 10x to 15x by November. That means 10x – 15x the number of voters disenfranchised by mail-in voting.

Once again, in this crisis in my opinion, it is worth the loss in votes to do mail-in voting. Yet as always, we caution voters and the General Assembly to look at all the facts in choosing what do to going forward.

 

Why I am not serving in a polling place in the August primary

A few weeks ago my local registrars emailed all recent polling place officials to ask if we would serve in the August primary. I was not looking forward to the anticipated email where I would have to choose. I had been thinking about it, knowing lots of facts positive and negative:

  • The email said there might be as few as three officials in a polling place – that sealed it for me.

I have proposed to assist in counting absentee ballots or other central office function. There, I can likely make a significant difference. Early in my election official career, I led a central count absentee ballot function five times.

 

A few weeks ago my local registrars emailed all recent polling place officials to ask if we would serve in the August primary. I was not looking forward to the anticipated email where I would have to choose. I had been thinking about it, knowing lots of facts positive and negative:

  • There would be a huge need for officials, as many would choose not to serve. Many novice officials would need to be recruited and trained.
  • Based on my experience, there is a need for an experienced, certified moderator in each polling place. Several times in recent years I had served as the only certified moderator in a polling place with previous experience. Either as the Moderator or an Assistant Registrar with the other moderators and assistant registrars all inexperienced, certified or not. My volunteering would mean a polling place would have sufficient knowledge to work, if there were enough officials.
  • I am in a moderate risk category with ample age and a moderate preexisting condition. I would seek agreement from my partner before I would put her in danger.
  • I was not sure how effective I could be in a mask for a 17-18 hour day.
  • I predicted (and still predict) a disaster news theme, as I predict at least several towns will have a number of polling places that do not work. (Similarly I predict a few will fail to provide an efficient and deliberate count of absentee ballots  as well.)
  • I could save, at most, one polling place from disaster, yet maybe despite my prediction, the vast majority of polling places with all new officials will work. Or some other experienced moderator would save mine, anyway.

I read the email carefully before responding:

  • The email said there might be as few as three officials in a polling place – that sealed it for me. A polling place like those in our town had about 1,000 voters in the 2016 Presidential Primary. It was busy in 2016 with that number. We had about the minimum, eight people, to handle a check-in line and ballot clerk for each party. A primary is busy serving many stressed voters who say, occasionally correctly, that our lists say they are not registered in the party they think they are. Even at half that number of voters we should have eight officials – plus we need to supervise voter distancing, pen distribution and cleaning etc. Three could not service 500 or more voters in a day. The normal non-COVID minimum is six officials, for any size polling place.
  • AND there is curbside voting, requiring two officials to spend about 10 minutes entirely dedicated to going back-and-forth to the parking lot to service one voter – that would leave only one official inside handling everything. A no-no leaving the polling place with a single official from one party, doing the job of eight officials.
  • No matter the risks, I could not save a polling place with three or anywhere near that few officials.

I have proposed to assist in counting absentee ballots or other central office function. There, I can likely make a significant difference. Early in my election official career, I led a central count absentee ballot function five times.

PS: Today’s Hartford Courant points out that number of three officials is a statewide minimum: Challenges await in presidential primary – Towns, cities prepare for Aug. 11 vote amid COVID-19 concerns <read>

 

CTMirror: Connecticut’s upcoming primary election should be audited. Will it really be?

Op-Ed CTMirror:  Connecticut’s upcoming primary election should be audited. Will it really be? <read>

Courant article on Merrill/Blumenthal press conference raises concerns.

In today’s Hartford Courant a report on yesterday’s press conference: Absentee ballot process smooth so far Blumenthal wants more election funding <read>

Gabe Rosenberg, a spokesman for Merrill, said the $45 million in additional funding would go toward new voting machines, new tabulators, more ballot boxes, voter education and enhanced cybersecurity. He said the funds, if distributed promptly, could ease a potentially chaotic Election Day in November.“It’s going to take along time to count because we don’t have high-speed ballot counters,” Rosenberg said. “That’s something we could buy with that kind of money.”…

As for the security of the new ballot boxes, Merrill said the receptacles were no less secure than a typical mailbox.“Just think of this as a mailbox,” she said. “The usual way you send back your ballot for 100 years is you send it back in the mail. This is just a fancy mailbox, and it’s here for a reason, because many town halls are still not open for business all the time.”

A crisis in nothing to waste, yet spending $45 million between now and November seems a bit excessive, especially when everything is complicated by COVID-19.

In today’s Hartford Courant a report on yesterday’s press conference: Absentee ballot process smooth so far Blumenthal wants more election funding <read>

First a note of caution. I have been misquoted by the press, so perhaps some of that applies here.  Here are the disturbing quotes:

Gabe Rosenberg, a spokesman for Merrill, said the $45 million in additional funding would go toward new voting machines, new tabulators, more ballot boxes, voter education and enhanced cybersecurity. He said the funds, if distributed promptly, could ease a potentially chaotic Election Day in November.“It’s going to take along time to count because we don’t have high-speed ballot counters,” Rosenberg said. “That’s something we could buy with that kind of money.”…

As for the security of the new ballot boxes, Merrill said the receptacles were no less secure than a typical mailbox.“Just think of this as a mailbox,” she said. “The usual way you send back your ballot for 100 years is you send it back in the mail. This is just a fancy mailbox, and it’s here for a reason, because many town halls are still not open for business all the time.”

A crisis in nothing to waste, yet spending $45 million between now and November seems a bit excessive, especially when everything is complicated by COVID-19.

  • The first concern is that evaluating and procuring new voting machines is very expensive and time consuming to do well, a long deliberate process. When Connecticut chose the AccuVoteOS machines in use now, the process took abut a year, with several machines evaluated by the UConn Voter Center, followed by public feedback and focus groups of voters, those with disabilities, officials, and technical experts. Even then  Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz made a poor choice. To her credit, quickly changed for the better. Followed by close to a year of education of officials and voters along with pilot use in 25 towns. Not something to do in haste.
  • We do not need high speed scanners. Its a myth that our current scanners significantly slow absentee vote counting. I have led central count absentee vote processing five times. I  also led a polling place where a scanner broke and we had to read 1,500 ballots into another scanner – that was done intermittently in less that two hours while voters continued to scan their votes into that same scanner. Scanning is a small part of absentee processing, perhaps 10%. In Glastonbury. in November 2016. we had less than 20,000 votes for President, 90+% counted in six polling place scanners. If we used six scanners for absentee counting, with a reasonable plan, they could count all the votes in a few hours, overlapped with the other aspects of processing absentees. Glastonbury has at least two scanners already dedicated to absentee counting.  Secretary of the State Merrill has already purchased a reserve supply of AccuVoteOS scanners. Used AccuVoteOS scanners are available at about $40 at auction sites and dealers.
  • Its a big deal to purchase and test high speed scanners. We can’t use just any scanner. We need a high speed scanner made for vote counting.  Not just any vote counting, but compatible with ballots used by our AccuVoteOS.  It would help if they did not require separate programming from the AccuVoteOS scanners and did well with folded or creased ballots.
  • We do not currently audit absentee ballot scanners. Unless that is addressed, this August and November only the scanners in polling places will be subject to audit. Inadequate with uniform scanners, yet all but useless if a different model is used for absentees and counts the majority of ballots in the election.
  • These new ballot boxes are vulnerable and will be targets. Once again, if they are safe from attack, let us see the tests. Other states use them and keep them under video surveillance.

As I have said before, in this crisis I support expanded mail-in voting. Yet we cannot abandon common sense.

4th of July Suggestion

As we often do, a suggested reading for the 4th of July weekend.  Today it seems the Constitution is under assault from all sides, with an administration assaulting the rule of law and civil rights advocates identifying its fundamental flaws. Lets refresh ourselves on our purer, more basic rights.

This weekend is a great time to [re-]read the Declaration of Independence. We find it very inspiring to read it sometime around the 4th of July each year.  As we have discussed before, some believe that the right to vote is more fundamental than the Constitution. Here is a link to a copy for your reading <Declaration of Independence>

The Declaration of Independence asserts our rights to determine and change our form of government – without voting integrity we lose that most fundamental of rights.

“The right to vote… is the primary right by which other rights are protected” – Thomas Paine

As we often do, a suggested reading for the 4th of July weekend.  Today it seems the Constitution is under assault from all sides, with an administration assaulting the rule of law and civil rights advocates identifying its fundamental flaws. Lets refresh ourselves on our purer, more basic rights.

This weekend is a great time to [re-]read the Declaration of Independence. We find it very inspiring to read it sometime around the 4th of July each year.  As we have discussed before, some believe that the right to vote is more fundamental than the Constitution. Here is a link to a copy for your reading <Declaration of Independence>

The Declaration of Independence asserts our rights to determine and change our form of government – without voting integrity we lose that most fundamental of rights.

“The right to vote… is the primary right by which other rights are protected” – Thomas Paine

Comments on new Federal Voting Systems Guidelines

Last week I submitted comments for the State Audit Working Group on the proposed (Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines) VVSG 2.0 standards which will define future voting system standards. Looking over all the submissions, ours were likely the most extensive detailed comments submitted. In total our submission was about three hundred and fifty pages!

By far the largest number of comments were from disability rights groups and individuals supporting their positions, many redundant. Access for the disabled is one of the most controversial and critical issues.

There are other issues with the proposed guidelines. The proposal is a far from a finished product, with wide-ranging comments. It will be a huge task to complete them, far more challenging to complete well.

Last week I submitted comments for the State Audit Working Group on the proposed (Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines) VVSG 2.0 standards which will define future voting system standards. Looking over all the submissions, ours were likely the most extensive detailed comments submitted. In total our submission was about three hundred and fifty pages!  You might consider reading the cover letter and then the Glossary Comments which have their own cover letter. In all, we spent over 200 hours developing and agreeing upon our comments. We were pleased to have thirteen signers and endorsements in comments from others groups : <SAWG Comments>

In all there were seventy-seven comments from various voting integrity, vendor, disability rights groups, and individuals <All Comments>

By far the largest number of comments were from disability rights groups and individuals supporting their positions, many redundant. Access for the disabled is one of the most controversial and critical issues. Many argue that everyone should vote on exactly the same voting machines so that all have equal access. There are several problems with this argument which would have us all vote on BMDs (Ballot Marking Devices): BMDs are not fully developed to meet the needs of the disabled, they need lots of work; Despite voting on identical machines, BMDs provide multiple interfaces for those with various disabilities , leaving voters not actually voting the same way anyway; BMDs cost about four times what a combination of a single BMD per polling place with VMPB (Voter Marked Paper Ballots) for most voters; BMDs do not serve some voters with disabilities  who cannot use them but can use paper ballots; BMDs are often the cause of the long lines we see in Georgia, Pennsylvania and elsewhere – almost non-existent in CT which has the single BMD and VMPB model; those long lines hurt the vast majority of those with disabilities who have issues with walking and standing in line for hours. I would favor investing the savings in BMD research and preparing to replace that one BMD per polling place as better solutions are developed. For some interesting comments on the challenges of the disabled that do not take the standard advocacy line, read the comments from <Marybeth Kuznik>, <Noel Runyan>, and <Harvie Branscomb>.

There are other issues with the proposed guidelines: They spend too little on vote-by-mail equipment; fail to fully recognize early voting; are too detailed in some areas and sketchy in others; provide for unsafe Recallable Ballots; and as vendors point out are often too prescriptive and expensive to implement. The proposal is a far from a finished product, with wide-ranging comments. It will be a huge task to complete them, far more challenging to complete well.

Block Chain Fantasy…Chained for good!

We told you so.  And now it is final, from the Hartford Courant: With $400M Fintech Village apparently dead, West Hartford Town Council prepares to move on; 

Aug 2019:  West Hartford Scam Playing Out As We Predicted 

We told you so.  And now it is final, from the Hartford Courant: With $400M Fintech Village apparently dead, West Hartford Town Council prepares to move on; <read>

With the plan to convert the former UConn West Hartford campus into the $400 million Fintech Village tech hub essentially dead, West Hartford is going to take another look at buying the 58-acre parcel in the Bishop’s Corner neighborhood.

The town reached an agreement with Ideanomics, Fintech Village’s parent company, have reached a deal that gives West Hartford the right of first refusal on an sales deal. The town will also examine buying the property.

Ideanomics said earlier this year and repeated in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing Tuesday that its much ballyhooed West Hartford project is a “non-core asset” and that it is looking to divest it

Aug 2019:  West Hartford Scam Playing Out As We Predicted <read>

Chickens come home to roost for Stratford Registrar

Last year there were hearings on a close election debacle in Stratford. It looked from the hearings that the registrars and moderator messed up and tried to look good before the General Assembly.  In the end the General Assembly deadlocked and apparently there were no consequences for the Registrars. (See Deadlocked Committee on Contested Elections passes ball to whole House) The House never considered or acted on the deadlocked Committee’s recommendations.

Yet now we learn that the Democratic Town Committee did not endorse the incumbent registrar. (See: CTPost Article which did not mention this past history):

The Demoratic (sic) Town Committee snubbed the party’s incumbent registrar of voters during an endorsement meeting Wednesday, lining up a possible primary in the race.

Last year there were hearings on a close election debacle in Stratford. It looked from the hearings that the registrars and moderator messed up and tried to look good before the General Assembly.  In the end the General Assembly deadlocked and apparently there were no consequences for the Registrars. (See Deadlocked Committee on Contested Elections passes ball to whole House) The House never considered or acted on the deadlocked Committee’s recommendations.

Yet now we learn that the Democratic Town Committee did not endorse the incumbent registrar. (See: CTPost Article which did not mention this past history):

The Demoratic (sic) Town Committee snubbed the party’s incumbent registrar of voters during an endorsement meeting Wednesday, lining up a possible primary in the race.

Three-time incumbent Rick Marcone, himself a former chair of the Democratic Town Committee, was not even nominated during Wednesday’s meeting…

Marcone said Thursday he was gathering signatures for a primary which would coincide with the presidential primary scheduled for Aug. 11.

Marcone said he wasn’t surprised by Wednesday’s vote.

“I had somebody lined up to endorse me but then they backed out,” he said. “I saw the writing on the wall.”

“I’m going to be moving forward with primary petitions and we’ll see what happens from there,” Marcone said.

The loser of a primary for the race could also petition for a spot on the ballot in November. The town charter says that the two top vote-getters from different parties are elected as registrars.