Connecticut Citizen Election Audit

Aug 2010 Post-Election Audit Observation Report – Incremental Improvement – New Integrity Concern

By editor on October 20, 2010

Summary, from the Press Release and Report:

Coalition Finds Small Improvements and New Problem in
Connecticut Post-Election Audits

Citizen observation and analysis shows some improvements along with a newly uncovered problem with the random selection process

This is the sixth major post-election audit observation report by the Coalition since the adoption of optical scanners and paper ballots statewide.

Coalition Executive Director, Luther Weeks noted, “Unfortunately, we discovered that the list of polling districts for the random audit drawing was missing some districts and is otherwise inaccurate and ambiguous. The integrity of the audit requires an accurate list of districts that is verifiable by the public. We have extended our recommendations to the Legislature to include an efficient fix to this problem.”

League of Women Voters of Connecticut President, Cheryl Dunson said: “Compared to previous audits, the Coalition noted continuing incremental improvements in the attention to detail, following procedures, and in the chain-of-custody by election officials. We caution that the primary audit is simpler and shorter than those for November elections which may account for the much more accurate counting this time.”

We conclude that August post-election audits still do not inspire confidence because of:

failure in the integrity of the random district selection process,
lack of standards for determining need for further investigation of discrepancies,
weaknesses in the ballot chain of custody, and
lack of, consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit.

Each of these items individually could impact the integrity of the statewide post-election audit and calls into question the credibility of the entire post-election audit.

Although most of our general observations and concerns remain, we observed improvements in following audit procedures, in the accuracy of the counting, and in the completion of forms.

Connecticut Citizen Action Group Executive Director, Tom Swan said, “The integrity of the entire audit is dependent the ballot chain-of-custody and on every step of the audit being accurately accomplished in a consistent, transparent, and professional manner. We continue to support our past recommendations to the Secretary of the State and the Legislature for improvement in the post-election audit laws, counting procedures, and chain-of-custody.”

Weeks added, “We look forward to the post-election audit of the November election. We hope to see significant improvement in following procedures along with more accurate counting, demonstrated in the November post-election audit which will involve more extensive, complex counting. ”

Observers came from the membership ranks of the coalition partners — The League of Women Voters of Connecticut, The Connecticut Citizen Action Group, Common Cause Connecticut, and Connecticut Voters Count. Without volunteer observers, nobody but a small number of local election officials would know what happens in post-election audits.

New Overall Audit Integrity Concern

A new concern surfacing this year is the inaccurate list of districts used in the random selection process which is required by law to be based on all of the districts used in the election. This directly impacts the integrity and credibility of the entire post-election audit.

Issues In Three Towns

Several districts in one town were selected, but in one case in the municipality, the ballot bag contained only blank ballots. In subsequent discussions with the registrar, she reported that a novice moderator in a multiple district polling place had sealed all voted ballots in one bag and all unused ballots in another bag. [As far as we know, this district was never counted as it was not included in Audit Reports from the Secretary of the State.]

In the one district: The official Audit Report indicates 1703 machine counted ballots but only 688 manually counted ballots counted in the audit. In that same audit report 188 ballots are listed for one party with a total of 254 votes in the race audited for that party. The huge difference may represent poor counting procedures and lack of understanding of the audit procedures, however, we have no way of determining the accuracy of the audit nor of the official reporting of results. Our observer’s comments:

They never counted the ballots first…One team referenced the Tally Sheet from Election night. They recounted their votes until the figures agreed… Checking was done to the Tally Sheet off the Moderator’s report not the machine tape… I did not observe a machine tape, only the Moderator’s return with the Tally Sheet. When I asked if they had a machine tape, I was told no by one of the Registrars. When I asked if there was a tape in the ballot bag, I was told no… I have concern about the number entered on the “LT Gov”

These results may represent incompetence. However, incompetence uninvestigated transparently leaves an opening to cover-up fraud and error. The Secretary of the State’s Office had reviewed district results, yet apparently did not notice these large differences until it was pointed out by the coalition.

In one of the last district reports provided to the Secretary of the State’s Office: In one district in one municipality which audited three districts there was a significant difference between the machine counts in one race and the hand count reported. For two candidates the machine counted 262 and 154 votes while the hand counts were 132 and 78 votes for those same candidates.

Posted in Report

Nov 2009 Observation Report – Improvement, Yet Still Unsatisfactory

By editor on February 2, 2010

Summary, from the Press Release and Report:

Coalition Finds Unsatisfactory Improvement
In Election Audits Across The State

Citizen observation and analysis show the need for more attention to detail by officials, improvement in counting methods, and ballot chain-of-custody

The Coalition noted significant differences between results reported by optical scanners and the hand count of ballots by election officials across Connecticut. Compared to previous audits, the Coalition noted small incremental improvements in the attention to detail, following procedures, and in the chain-of-custody.

Coalition spokesperson Luther Weeks noted, “We acknowledge some improvement, yet there is still a long way to go to provide confidence in our election system that the voters of Connecticut deserve.”

From the report:

In this report, we conclude that the November post-election audits still do not inspire confidence because of the continued lack of

standards for determining need for further investigation of discrepancies,

detailed guidance for counting procedures, and

consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit. .

We find no reason to attribute all errors to either humans or machines.

Cheryl Dunson, League of Women Voters of Connecticut’s Vice President of Public Issues, stated, “We continue to support our past recommendations to the Secretary of the State and the Legislature for improvement in the post-election audit laws, counting procedures, and chain-of-custody.”

Tom Swan, Executive Director, Connecticut Citizen Action Group, said, “Among our greatest concerns are the discrepancies between machine counts and hand-counts reported to the Secretary of the State by municipalities When differences are dismissed as human counting errors, it is unlikely that an audit would identify an election error or fraud should that occur”

Cheri Quickmire, Executive Director, Connecticut Common Cause said “There needs to be training and accountability. Election officials need to be familiar with the procedures, follow the procedures, and the procedures must be enforceable.”

Posted in Report

Nov 2008 Observation Report – Large Differences From Optical Scanner Totals

By admin on January 28, 2009

Summary, from the Press Release and Report:

Connecticut’s November 2008 Post-Election Audits Report
Large Differences From Optical Scanner Totals

Coalition Calls On Legislature To Act

The Coalition noted large differences between reported results by electronic voting equipment and the hand count of ballots by election officials across Connecticut. In some cases as many as twenty-four (24) fewer ballots were counted by hand than recorded by optical scanners. For individual candidate races, vote counts between hand counts and scanner tapes varied by as much as three-hundred-sixty-six (366) votes in one race or as much as 46% in another. Most officials attributed the widespread differences to the inability to count votes accurately by hand.

In this report, we conclude, based on our observations and analysis of audit reports submitted to the Secretary of the State that the November post-election audits still do not inspire confidence because of the continued lack of
• standards,
• detailed guidance for counting procedures, and
• consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit.

We also note continuing failures to follow audit and chain-of-custody procedures.

Among our greatest concerns are the discrepancies between machine counts and hand-counts reported to the Secretary of the State by several municipalities. In many cases, these discrepancies are not thoroughly and reasonably explained. We believe that the ad-hoc counting procedures used by many municipalities were not sufficient to count ballots accurately and efficiently.

Several audit supervisors attributed discrepancies between machine counts and hand counts to human limitations; other supervisors attributed these to inaccurate scanners. We find no reason to attribute all errors to either humans or machines.

Coalition spokesperson Luther Weeks noted, “Given the variation in the counting procedures used, there is no way to distinguish when officials or machines counted accurately or inaccurately. When differences are dismissed as human counting errors, it is unlikely that an audit would identify an election error or fraud should that occur.”

Cheryl Dunson, League of Women Voters of Connecticut’s Vice President of Public Issues, stated, “We have reorganized our recommendations to the Secretary of the State and the Legislature. Along with improvements to laws, and audit procedures, we recommend that an Independent Audit Board be established.”

Cheri Quickmire, Executive Director, Connecticut Common Cause said, “Gaps in ballot chain-of-custody, election accounting, and the post-election audits must be addressed to assure integrity and provide confidence to the voters of Connecticut”

Tom Swan, Executive Director, Connecticut Citizen Action Group, said “This is our fourth report showing similar weaknesses in the post-election audits. After these reports and five public hearings around the state, it is time for the Legislature to act.”

Posted in Report

Aug 2008 Primary Election Observation Report

By admin on October 24, 2008

The Report <read .pdf>

From the Press Release and Report:

Coalition Releases Audit Report on August Primary:

Raises concerns with audit credibility and
potential problems for November post-election audit.

Despite continued improvements to the published procedures, the August post-election audit observations do not inspire increased confidence. We continue to observe that voters make few errors and that properly programmed and functioning tabulators count votes accurately. However, the lack of standards and detailed guidance, and the lack of consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit continues.

Our further focus on the chain-of-custody surfaced another potential concern in audit credibility. We find potential risks to the integrity of and confidence in the reported results of post-election audits based on the lack of uniformly secure ballot storage and access. Looking forward, we doubt the current ad-hoc counting procedures used by most municipalities will prove sufficient to accurately and efficiently count ballots considering the expected volume in the November 2008 election.

The current haphazard ad-hoc processes are insufficient, inefficient, and are likely to break down in larger elections such as the upcoming presidential election, just as they did in the 2007 November Municipal election.

We are not questioning any individual’s integrity; however, we do not believe a secure system is one that relies on single individuals with opportunity to alter records. The lack of uniform security of the ballots diminishes confidence in the integrity of the ballots counted in an audit.

Posted in Report

Feb 2008 Presidential Primary Observation Report

By admin on April 3, 2008

The Report <read .pdf>

From the Press Release and Summary:

Coalition Releases 2nd Post-Election Audit Report:

Procedures Alone Insufficient For Effective Election Audits

Coalition report on post-presidential-primary audits finds inadequate adherence to procedures and recommends additional changes in the law.

We report the good news that procedures have been significantly improved and that discrepancies noted in the counts in February post election audit were much lower than November. We are also pleased to report that, for the most part, registrars fully supported the portion of the procedures providing significantly improved observation opportunities for observers. These procedures allowed us to visually verify that ballots were being counted accurately and totals reported were accurately accumulated from those counts.

Unfortunately, now that procedures have been improved, the audit observations have exposed the lack of understanding of those procedures, lack of understanding of the principles behind the procedures, lack of attention to those procedures, and apparent lack of ability for election officials to follow those procedures.
The February audit observations leave us with the information necessary to vouch for the accuracy of the hand-counting results we observed. However, many of the audits, as observed, leave us uncertain as to whether an error or fraud would have been detected in an audited race where we were not present to observe. We also question the security of the chain of custody to protect the integrity of ballots before the audits and to protect the integrity of ballots and tabulators after the audits such that further audits and investigations could effectively be performed.

Posted in Report

Nov 2007 Municipal Elections Audit Observation Report

By admin on January 16, 2008

The Report <read .pdf>
Statistics Summary <view .pdf>
Statistics Detail Data <view .xls>
(Note: The statistics detail is an Excel spreadsheet with multiple worksheets. We have seen problems viewing it with some browsers.)

From the Press Release:

Coalition Says Changes Needed in Election Audits

Four good government groups have proposed 18 recommendations to improve the state’s post-election audit process to assure the integrity of the vote in Connecticut.

Hartford, Connecticut — Today the Connecticut Citizen Election Audit Coalition recommended 18 steps to a more effective and meaningful post-election audit process for all future elections in the state. The group’s report summarized the observations of more than 50 impartial citizen observers at 31 state-mandated post-election audits conducted by local officials following November’s municipal elections. Observers came from the membership ranks of the coalition partners—the League of Women Voters of Connecticut, Common Cause Connecticut, the Connecticut Citizen Action Group, and CTVotersCount.

Coalition spokesperson Luther Weeks noted, “Many of the audits, as observed, leave us uncertain as to whether an error or fraud would have been detected in an audited race in this election. More rigorous controls and consistency in manual counting procedures are needed throughout the state, along with follow-up investigations to explain variations in the tallies to attribute discrepancies either to machine or to human error. ”

League Vice President Cheryl Dunson stated that, “in light of the growing use of electronic voting technology throughout the country, elections officials and good government groups are re-examining their election operations. The coalition recommends that the Secretary of the State provide local elections officials with specific directions for auditing and reporting, make a full public report of all post-election audit results, and establish clear criteria for further investigation of audit discrepancies”. The group urged state elections officials to seek out national efforts on “best practices” for conducting audits and ensuring maximum transparency in the audit process.

Posted in Report

CTElectionAudit.org