New Jersey's Post-Election Audit Bill and Its Importance to Our Nation

[Wilms]

Election Integrity: Fact & Friction

New Jersey's Post-Election Audit Bill and Its Importance to Our Nation

by Howard Stanislevic

Saturday, January 5, 2008

Despite the efforts of election integrity advocates, statisticians and computer scientists, 2007 marked the fifth year since the passage of the Help America Vote Act that the federal government has failed to solve the electronic vote-counting problem. Perhaps more significantly, '07 was the 32nd year since Roy Saltman, working for the National Institute of Standards and Technology's predecessor agency, the National Bureau of Standards, proposed what many believe to be the first workable solution to this problem way back in 1975!

snip

The same security problems that exist with DREs are present with optical scanners. Both use the same centralized election management systems (typically a single PC for an entire county -- sometimes poorly secured), and with either type of system, the combination of the secret ballot and the trade-secret vote-counting software makes it almost impossible for anyone to know that their vote is being counted as cast. Add to this the fact that error-free software is beyond the state of the art, so even with the best of intentions, it's not possible to know who really won an election counted only electronically with software.

Fortunately the solution to this problem is relatively simple. Not surprisingly, it has little to do with computer science, information technology or software -- and it's not very expensive either. Researchers at Northeastern University and MIT (Aslam, Popa and Rivest) have demystified the statistical procedure involved so that it can be implemented using high-school-level math and a hand calculator. Statisticians, auditors, and other advocates across the nation will now be able to explain https://vvf.jot.com/WikiHome/SummitStuff/SampleSizeCalculation-HS-JMc-ML.pdf"> this procedure to election officials and average voters.

The solution is to hand count enough votes, at a cost of about 10¢ apiece, to find out who won each audited election contest. And New Jersey's post-election audit bill, S507/A2730 will become the first law in the nation to require confirmation of electoral outcomes by using such a procedure, independently of software.

http://e-voter.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-jerseys-post-election-audit-bill_02.html

[MissWaverly]

1. this is worth a kick to the Greatest Page

[Wilms]

8. And worth picking up the phone/emailing/faxing if you're in NJ.

Jersey Boys and Girls can contact these Assembly Members and tell them to Pass A2730 on Monday. The Assembly convenes at Noon so there is PLENTY of time:

Joseph Roberts (D - Speaker)
Email contact info at: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/roberts.asp
Phone: [phone]

Bonnie Watson Coleman (D - Majority Leader)
Email contact info at: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/watson.asp
Phone: [phone]

Reed Gusciori (D - the bill's sponsor)
Email contact info at: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/gusciora.asp
Phone: [phone]

Alex DeCroce (R - Minority leader)
Email contact info at: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/decroce.asp
Phone: [phone]

Bill Baroni (R)
Email contact info at: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/baroni.asp
Phone: [phone]

[MissWaverly]

11. Yes, indeed

too bad we don't have something like that in Maryland.

:-)

[rumpel]

2. Cheers to NJ!

k&r

[troubleinwinter]

3. K&R!

[EFerrari]

4. K&R

[FogerRox]

5. Nia Gill has champoined S507, shes a good one.

[GuvWurld]

6. K &/or R

[Melissa G]

7. K-ing and R-ing n/t

[Mnemosyne]

9. KnR! n/t

[Bill Bored]

10. This bill kicks ass! nt

[Wilms]

12. Web Video Link: The Assembly is in session. Hopefully they'll vote this in now.

http://rmserver.njleg.state.nj.us/ENCODERAC

[Wilms]

13. Kick n/t

[garybeck]

14. I just read the bill. A few comments

Here is a link to the bill text:
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A3000/2730_R1.PDF

It appears to be a straight 2% audit. That is 2% of the precincts in each county.

However I read an article about the bill that states:

As Fritz Scheuren, President of the American Statistical Association states,

"The key contribution of this legislation is to correct a common design flaw in the audit or verification of votes cast that calls for a fixed percent of the precincts to be recounted. The fixed percentage approach is just wrong, wasteful on the one hand and insufficient on the other."

http://freepage.twoday.net/stories/4603911/

I don't see where this is anything but a fixed percentage audit????

Beyond that it seems like a decent bill, although the 2% is too low.

Curiously it says that the audit board can adopt procedures as long as they are targeted towards ensuring "a 99% chance that a 100% hand count would not change the outcome." It would logically follow that the 2% fixed audit should target that same goal, but I have never heard that a 2% audit can give a 99% degree of confidence and I would be surprised if that were the case.

One thing I like about the bill (now law) is that the Attorney General (not the SoS) must announce the discrepancy allowances before the election, and if they are exceded in the audit, it seems like they have to start counting more ballots by hand automatically.

I am still more interested in some of the newer audit solutions like this one:
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/upspr

One thing that raised my eyebrows is the claim that this is the "first" audit bill in the nation. Hasn't California had a 1% audit for a couple years now?

I give the New Jersey Legislature KUDOS for doing something, but a "B" grade on their homework for only auditing 2% and not considering other audit techniques that may be superior (and evidently they still allow DREs with VVPATs in the state).

[Wilms]

15. You misread that. The minimum is 2%

But as highlighted below, the audit "shall be implemented to ensure with at least 99% statistical power that for each federal, gubernatorial or other Statewide election held in the State, a 100% manual recount of the voter-verifiable paper records would not alter the electoral outcome reported by the audit".

It means if a 1% audit would accomplish that, you'd still have to do 2%. And state might have to audit 100% of the ballots in a really close race to "ensure" the outcome is correct.

Reread what made it seem "to be a straight 2% audit" and then read this.

The independent audit team shall oversee, supervise, and require county election officials to conduct an audit of the results of an election in accordance with the following procedures.

(1) Any procedure designed, adopted, and implemented by the audit team shall be implemented to ensure with at least 99% statistical power that for each federal, gubernatorial or other Statewide election held in the State, a 100% manual recount of the voter-verifiable paper records would not alter the electoral outcome reported by the audit. For each election held for State office, other than Governor and Lieutenant Governor, and for county and municipal elections held in 100 or more election districts, any procedure designed, adopted, and implemented by the audit team shall be implemented to ensure with at least 90% statistical power that a 100% manual recount of the voter-verifiable paper records would not alter the electoral outcome reported by the audit. Such procedures designed, adopted, and implemented by the audit team to achieve statistical power shall be based upon scientifically reasonable assumptions, with respect to each audited election, including but not limited to: the possibility that within any election district up to 20% of the total votes cast may have been counted for a candidate or ballot position other than the one intended by the voters; and that the number of votes cast per election district will vary. Such procedures and assumptions shall be published prior to any given election, and the public shall have the opportunity to comment thereon.

And that's what Corzine didn't like, although he signed it into law.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x494152

[garybeck]

16. I did read that part, but interpreted it differently.

the way I read it, the 2% is indeed minimum:

"It shall conduct random hand counts of the voter-verified paper records in at least two percent of the election districts where elections are held for federal or State office,..."

The way I read it is..., it does not instruct the Audit Team to do anything over the 2%. It only says that IF they adopt any additional procedures, they must satisfy the 99% confidence level.

So I could be wrong but the way I read it is, they could just do the minimum, not add any other procedures, and they are satisfying the law. Only if the choose to do more, does the 99% rule kick in.

Again I could be wrong but that's how I read it.

It begs the question, does a 2% audit come close to a 99% confidence level?

[Wilms]

17. Where is the word "IF" you refer to?

The only comment I have otherwise would be to repost what I did.

[garybeck]

18. Okay...

when I read this:

"(1) Any procedure designed, adopted, and implemented by the audit team shall be implemented..."

I just don't see where it says that they have to design or adopt any procedures, other than the mandated 2% audit.

It would be more clear, if they said "Audit Team must design and adopt procedures that ensure a 99% statistical confidence level..."

You're probably right, but I think it could be worded a little more clearly :)

[Bill Bored]

19. Wilms, Esq. Strikes Again!

I think you have correctly interpreted this law and unless someone can find another one with anything close to this requirement, I guess it really is the first in the nation too.