By editor on November 14, 2017
This morning Secretary of the State, Denise Merrill selected 34 district for audit with the help of students at Wethersfield High School:
Posted in Report
By editor on March 28, 2017
Two Blows to Connecticut Election Audits
Leave Them Weaker, Less Credible
From the Press Release:
In spite of growing national concerns about election integrity, election credibility in Connecticut has suffered two devastating blows:
- The Connecticut General Assembly cut post-election audits in half from 10% to 5% of voting districts, and failed to fix glaring weaknesses in the state’s audit law.
- Shockingly, Connecticut has become the first state to replace verifiable hand-count audits with unverifiable electronic audits. Now the public can’t verify audit results.
“It need not be this way. Electronic audits can be manually verified without sacrificing efficiency,” said Luther Weeks, Executive Director of Connecticut Citizen Election Audit. “Because audits are conducted by the same officials responsible for conducting elections, audits must be transparent and publicly verifiable,” he said.
The Citizen Election Audit also found continuing problems with how municipalities conducted audits. “The Secretary’s Office should take the lead in ensuring that audits are complete, credible, and publicly verifiable,” Weeks said. “The public, candidates, and Secretary Merrill should expect local election officials to organize audits that produce accurate audit reports,” he said.
Posted in Report
By editor on September 29, 2016
Checks on State Voting Machines Do Not Make the Grade
Do Not Provide Confidence in Election System, Says Citizen Audit
From the Press Release:
Audits of the recent presidential primaries are so faulty that exact final vote tallies cannot be verified, says the non-partisan Connecticut Citizen Election Audit. Unless state and local election officials make changes, the same will be true for the November elections.
“State law requires audits to verify the accuracy of optical scanner voting machines as a check for errors and a deterrent to fraud. Local registrars gather officials to manually count paper ballots and compare their totals to the totals found by the scanners”, explains Luther Weeks, Executive Director of Connecticut Citizen Election Audit.
Issues reported by the group were:
- Incomplete or missing official reports of vote counts from town registrars;
- The lack of action on the part of the Secretary of the State’s Office to check that all required reports are submitted and all submitted reports are completed fully;
- Of 169 municipalities required to submit lists of polling places before the election, the Secretary of the State’s Office recorded only 68, with 101 missing;
- Poor security procedures to prohibit ballot tampering;
- Not following procedures intended to ensure “double checking” and “blind counting” rather than having scanner counts as targets while counting manually;
“The public, candidates, and the Secretary of the State should expect local election officials to organize proper audits and produce accurate, complete audit reports. The public and candidates should expect the Secretary of the State’s Office to take the lead in ensuring the audits are complete. Yet, due to a lack of attention to detail and follow-through the audits do not prove or disprove the accuracy of the reported primary results,” Weeks said.
<Press Release .pdf> <Full Report pdf> <Detail data/municipal reports>
Posted in Report
By editor on April 5, 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 Report
By editor 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 Report
By editor on November 20, 2015


Yesterday we observed the random drawing of 68 districts and alternate districts for the post-election audit. Just as last time, it was an effective and educational event for all those present and participating. After each district was drawn they were marked on an map of the State. See the <press release> for more details and a list of the districts chosen.
Posted in Report
By editor 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.
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 Report
By editor on January 22, 2015
SOTS Office makes improvements, significant Registrars of Voters flaws continue
Improvements noted by the Citizen Audit include:
- Small, yet significant improvements in and corrections to the Official Audit Procedures made by the Secretary of the State’s Office (SOTS Office) at the request of the Citizen Audit.
- Increased integrity and credibility of the audit based on a Citizen Audit of the random drawing of districts and races. (As reported separately on 1/21/2015)
- Significantly fewer errors in the random drawing list in November 2014 compared to November 2013.
- Public and transparent drawing of races to be audited after the November election.
The audit observation report concluded that the official audit results do not inspire confidence after eight years and fourteen audits, because of the continued:
- Lack of consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit.
- Discrepancies between machine counts and hand counts reported to the Secretary of the State by municipalities.
- Lack of investigation of such discrepancies, and the lack of standards for triggering such investigations.
- Weaknesses in the ballot chain-of-custody.
The audit observations also uncovered tabulator errors and inadequate election procedures which cause some votes for registered write-in candidates to not be counted.
Citizen Audit spokesperson Luther Weeks stated, “We appreciate improvements made by the Secretary of the State’s Office. We remain disappointed after eight years that significant improvements remain to achieve a credible audit, especially by local election officials, in too many municipalities.”
<Full Report (.pdf)> <Press Release>
Detail data/municipal reports <Nov> <Aug>
Posted in Report
By editor on January 21, 2015
Secretary of the State and her Office significantly improve integrity and transparency of the random drawing
Report findings included:
- Significantly fewer errors in the random drawing list in November 2014 compared to November 2013, finding:
- One (1) missing district in 2014 vs. sixteen (16) missing in 2013.
- Seven (7) non-existent districts on the list in 2014 vs. two (2) in 2013.
- Three (3) municipalities incorrect in 2014 vs. fourteen (14) incorrect in 2013.
- Improvements largely due to the diligence of the Secretary of the State’s Office, in leading compliance in 2014, with a law intended to fix past problems.
- A compliance failure rate of 2.4% in 2014 vs. 67% in 2013.
- We also appreciate that the Secretary and Secretary’s Office responded to our request to reverse past precedent and hold a public and transparent drawing of races to be audited.
Citizen Audit spokesperson Luther Weeks noted, “We applaud improvements made by the Secretary of the State and her Office. The drawing was significantly more accurate than last year and, for the first time, the Secretary chose races for audit publicly and transparently”
<Full Report (.pdf)> <Press Release> <Backup Data>
Posted in Report
By editor on March 3, 2014
Citizen Audit Finds Little Improvement In Election Audits
Post-Election Audit Flaws Remain After Seven Years and Twelve Audits
The report concluded that the official audit results do not inspire confidence because of the continued:
- Lack of consistency, reliability, and transparency in the conduct of the audit.
- Discrepancies between machine counts and hand counts reported to the Secretary of the State by municipalities.
- Lack of investigation of such discrepancies, and the lack of standards for triggering such investigations.
- Weaknesses in the ballot chain-of-custody.
- An unsatisfactory improvement in the random audit drawing integrity vs. the November 2012 audit, as reported in our recent Districts In Drawing Study.
Coalition spokesperson Luther Weeks noted, “When compared with audits in 2011 and 2012 we found little difference, positive or negative, on the issues previously identified and the level of concerns affecting confidence.
“Without adherence to procedures and effective follow-up, if there was ever a significant fraud or error, it might not be recognized and corrected.”
“Some officials follow the audit procedures and do effective work, yet a trusted audit requires that all the districts and all the votes be counted in the audit as intended.”
<Full Report (.pdf)> <Press Release> <Review detail data and municipal reports>
Posted in Report