Connecticut's 20% Manual Audits a Model for Election Security

Originally published January 14, 2007 at OpEdNews

Connecticut a National Model for Election Security: 20% Manual Audits

By Kathy Dopp

20% is sufficient to ensure integrity of outcomes in almost all federal elections for most election systems, although it would fall short of ensuring election integrity in small close local races. CT's
new procedure is a vast improvement in the sufficiency of manual audits. This is a terrific step forward by Susan Bysiewicz who also had the smarts to select optical scan voting systems (no DREs) for CT!

Secretary of State would make Connecticut National Model for Election Security

By Keith M. Phaneuf , Journal Inquirer, 01/12/2007
Excerpts from the article below:

HARTFORD - Hoping to make Connecticut a national model for safe elections, Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz unveiled a proposal this week calling for mandatory annual audits of one-fifth of all polling places.

"We owe it to the voters to allow them to always feel confident that they have an fair and transparent election process," Bysiewicz said during an interview in her Capitol office.

And while an ongoing debate on Capitol Hill includes a proposed national standard of audits in at least 2 percent of each state'svoting precincts, Bysiewicz says she's looking at a much tougher

The secretary said Thursday she is submitting a proposal to the state legislature's Government Administration and Elections Committee that would require audits in at least 20 percent of the state's 769 voting precincts, to be selected randomly.

Connecticut conducted a pilot program in 25 communities this fall. Two post-election analyses found no mistakes made by the new machines -which read ballots that voters mark by filling in ovals next to candidates' names.

But unlike the outgoing metal lever machines, they easily allow each ballot to be re-examined, both visually and electronically. Local election officials normally can complete an audit within one day.

"We have the capacity to do it, and I want the taxpayers to know that we've spent money on machines that work," Bysiewicz said. "I think it's very clear we made the right decision as to voting tech, but this would make us a national leader.
AOT 2007
(c)Journal Inquirer 2007