- The current Audit Process in Connecticut demonstrates the need for audits to be Independent and focused on election integrity, not just machine certification reliability. Even with hard work and high integrity the appearance of integrity is questionable when the Election Officials and the State’s Chief Election Official are responsible for both the audit the election. We know of no other area of business or Government where something labeled an “audit” is this far from independent. If the purpose of the audit were to just check if the machines can work as certified and not to uncover and rectify instances of error and fraud, then improved audit execution and tweaks of the current law might suffice. Yet, for the audits to provide election integrity we need a credible audit that is completed in time to adjust election results, that includes an audit of the entire process, and one that subjects all ballots and machines to selection for audit. The current law has too many exemptions which all represent opportunities for error or fraud to go undetected. Secretary Bysiewicz supported independent audits in 2008 when they failed to pass the Connecticut Legislature. She reiterated her commitment to independent audits and having a completely open process in a letter to CTVotersCount petition signers ( http://www.ctvoterscount.org/?p=1526 ) earlier this year, sent on January 23rd:
We supported the creation of an Independent Audit Board last legislative session as the next step in improving the administration of audits in our state. We also supported a bill that would require one hundred percent (100%) testing of memory cards prior to thier use. Of course, we will continue to support that type of refinement to our current process.
Our audit law requires that audits be conducted in public. I have long been a strong advocate of openness and transparency in government. We will advocate for the types of improvments suggested in the petition (e.g. that all audit activiteis should occur in public)...
We will work very hard to maintain the gains we have made against any effort to pull away from these basic security measures, like audits, on the ground that we face financial challenges in the state and local level. Like you, I strongly believe that such measures are critical to maintaining public confidence in our electoral process and constitute a small price to pay for ensuring that our elections function properly.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
