[V]ermont election officials are disputing the “C” grade the state received by a progressive think tank for its election security measures, calling the grade unfair.
The report on election policy in the 50 states, released this month by the Center for American Progress, a progressive policy research organization in Washington D.C., is critical of what it says are weaknesses in Vermont’s post-election audit system, and in state standards for certifying voting machines.
No state received an “A.”
But Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos said the report unfairly casts doubt on state election security.
“We thought it was not well done and we dispute the grade that we received,” Condos said.
The report comes at a time of heightened concerns about election security nationwide.
In September, the Department of Homeland Security told voting officials in 21 states that hackers connected to the Russian government had targeted their voter registration files or election sites during the 2016 election. Vermont was not among the targeted states, Condos said.
Last week, the U.S. Justice Department indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies on charges of meddling in the 2016 election. The indictments came out of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election led by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
The Center for American Progress’s report focused on Vermont’s post-election audit system which it called “unsatisfactory.” The state conducts random audits of polling place results within 30 days of an election. It means the audits take place after election results are already certified, the report says.
Furthermore, the report says, the results of the audits are not “binding:” in the event an audit finds a mistake in an election, the outcome of the election is not necessarily reversed. The state has to seek a court order to hold another election.
“Vermont should update its post-election audit procedures with requirements that can confirm the accuracy of election outcomes with a high degree of confidence,” the report states.
Condos said Vermont’s auditing process is thorough: the state randomly audits entire ballots in nearly five percent of municipalities.
“On the audit issue, we actually think we’re if not equal to, maybe even better than what most are doing across the country,” Condos said.
There has not been a major error since the state began auditing elections, in 2006, Condos said. But if an audit were to uncover a problem with a vote count, the state would have the option to go to court and nullify the election.
“We do have a remedy,” he said.
Some states require audits before election results can be certified, the report says. There are also states where audits trigger an immediate reversal in an election outcome.
Condos said Vermont state law requires that elections be certified no later than a week after an election. “There is no way in that short period of time that we could also do an audit,” he said.
Vermont is one of 33 states the report cited for having vulnerable auditing processes; 18 states have no requirements at all for post-election audits.
The report also criticized Vermont’s election officials for failing to require that voting machines used in state elections meet federal standards.
“Instead, Vermont’s secretary of state is responsible for certifying all election machines,” it states.
Condos said that while state law doesn’t require outside certification for its voting machines, the machines used by every municipality in the state do, in fact, meet federal standards.
Condos added that the Secretary of State’s office is developing rules that will make voting machine certification—by either the federal government, or another state— a new requirement. The rules could be in place by next year, he said.
The report gave Vermont credit for putting its voting machines through logic and accuracy testing ahead of elections.
It also gave Vermont points for requiring Vermont residents who live overseas to send in paper ballots instead of submitting electronic ones.
States that received “F” grades included Florida and Illinois. Both states rely on electronic voting machines and have no requirements for post-election audits, according to the report.
