Why Audits Are Necessary

[Melissa G]

Why Audits Are Necessary
By Ion Sancho, supervisor of Elections, Leon County, Florida
March 20, 2007
"Opponents to mandatory audits may cite increased costs and a lack of time as reasons against mandating audits. All I can tell the critics is look at Florida. Today, the lack of trust in our election procedures, the lack of trust in our election administration is too high a price to pay."



The following testimony was submitted to the Elections Subcommittee of the Committee on House Administration on March 20, 2007.



In my testimony today I will focus on the problems Florida has encountered over the past six years and how audits, or more accurately, the lack of audits, have contributed to the current crisis in confidence Floridians have in their electoral system.

What are audits? One dictionary definition refers to an official examination and verification of accounts and records. Merriam-Webster includes “a methodical examination and review”. Audits are essential to validate the accuracy truth of a whole range of activities, in private as well as public entities and financial institutions. The financial transactions of every branch of government are subject to audits. It is these audits which verify the correctness and accuracy of the actions taken by the organization and without a complex overlay of audits, whole sections of our economy and government could be open to attack and criticism as to the validity or propriety of policy and actions, unless confirmed through the process of auditing. But we don’t require audits of votes.

Which leads me directly to Florida and the 2000 elections. In Florida, audits for any election are not required. The word ‘audit’ is mentioned only six times in our election code, and before last year, the State of Florida, the Division of Elections had never conducted an audit of any election in history! The closest thing to an audit in Florida law was our pre-2000 recount provisions, in Chapter 102, which depending upon the closeness of the contest could mean that every ballot had to be manually examined.



Recounts are generally rare events. In my almost 20 year career, I have overseen four recounts and only one of these – the Presidential election of 2000 – involved a Federal race, and that recount, the only audit we could use was terminated by the U.S. Supreme court. The embarrassment suffered by Floridians, including election officials, arising from that unfortunate event, forced our Legislature to act.

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2335&Itemid=26

[Einsteinia]

1. >>Titanium Standard

It's more than an audit protocol, it's the structure of the conditions that secure the audit, which isn't really an audit--it's a mandatory precinct sampling, on election night, BEFORE the ballots leave citizen-controlled purview at the each and every precinct.

http://www.califelectprotect.net/Titanium.pdf

[Melissa G]

3. Exactly, Einstenia

a mandatory precinct sampling, on election night, BEFORE the ballots leave citizen-controlled purview at the each and every precinct. "

And a way for us to see and check a spreadsheet of this across the country.

[Bill Bored]

2. You heard the man!

"I leave it to the statisticians to determine what is the proper audit percentage to achieve an acceptable confidence level..."

Now why couldn't Rush Holt do that instead of proposing his bogus audit?

All voters must have confidence that electoral outcomes are correctly decided. Short of HCPB, the only way to do that is with a statistically significant audit -- not some made-up percentages. If that means some races need to be hand counted, so be it!

[Febble]

4. This is the shortest and sweetest

summary of what needs to happen that I have read so far!

Could you get it short enough to go on a bumper sticker?