You asked for information on the statewide computerized voter registry system, including (1) background on the system's development; (2) the towns that are not yet on the system, the reasons why they are not participating, and suggestions for solutions to the problems; (3) the cost of the system's development and maintenance; and (4) which other states have statewide voter registration systems.

SUMMARY

The General Assembly has been considering the subject of a statewide computerized voter registry list since the mid-1980's. Bills to study the issue were raised but not passed between 1985 and 1990. But a Government Administration and Elections (GAE) subcommittee conducted an interim study that recommended support of the idea. Special Act 91-45 required Secretary of the State Pauline Kezer to convene a task force, and that group concluded that such a system would be "feasible and desirable. " It recommended starting with a pilot program with a few towns.

The legislature approved a bond authorization for the project starting in fiscal year 1994 and in the spring of that year, Secretary Kezer began a feasibility study. In December 1994, she signed a contract to establish a system. Secretary Miles Rapoport continued with the pilot project for about 20 towns in 1995 and in 1996 a system was on-line. Towns gradually joined the system, known as CONVERSe, over the next several years. As of March 4, 2002, all but 27 towns are participating, including 15 of the state's 22 largest cities.

Although legislation requiring participation and system improvements did not pass last year, the secretary's office has pursued system enhancements in an effort to complete the statewide system. To resolve technical problems associated with "concurrency," the Elections Division in the secretary's office has worked with the state Department of Information Technology (DOIT) to convert the system to one that is browser-based. Manchester has switched to the new system first. The conversion, which involves changes that technical staff from the secretary's office and software changes DOIT must make in addition to training for users, is expected to be completed in about 140 towns before August 1, 2002. Secretary Susan Bysiewicz and her staff in the Elections Division believe the conversion to a browser-based system will resolve the problems that registrars have complained about and the enhancements to the new system will convince those towns not currently on the system to participate.

Towns that are not yet on the system have cited a variety of reasons, including that they have a local, in-house system that is familiar and tested; they are reluctant to change to any different system; or they are dissuaded by the early negative experience of towns that tried the system. Some registrars of voters are inclined to join when they are convinced that the statewide system is better than the one they are using.

The General Assembly has been authorizing bond funds for the development and implementation of the centralized voter registration system, along with the state's computerized campaign finance reporting system, since 1993. Deputy Secretary Maria Greenslade is reviewing office records to determine the exact amount of the total bond authorization allocated to the voter registration project and we will forward that figure along with the annual system operations estimates when we receive them.

States are at various stages of development with respect to a statewide voter registration list. Ten states have a unified database of voter information that permits access by state and local elections officials. Connecticut is considered to have a system described as a hybrid between a unified system and one that compiles local databases

and gives some access to local officials. In other states, the statewide list is compiled from local jurisdictions, but local officials cannot query the list. There is no statewide list in 13 states.

Election reform legislation pending in Congress requires states to maintain statewide, computerized, voter registration databases.

BACKGROUND

1991 Study

Since 1985, the Government Administration and Elections Committee has considered the issue of establishing and maintaining a statewide computerized voter registration system. In that year, the House recommitted a study bill, but a subcommittee of GAE reviewed the topic and voted to recommend to the full committee the development of a statewide voter registry list. Study bills raised in 1986 and 1987 died.

However, pursuant to Special Act 91-45, then-Secretary of the State Pauline Kezer convened the Electronic Elections Management Task Force to study the development of a centralized voter registry list and issued "A Report on the Establishment and Maintenance of a Centralized Voter Registry List" on September 30, 1992. According to the report, 19 states had statewide lists at the time, six of which were fully computerized registry lists with all counties on-line. The report addressed issues such as the use of a statewide list and privacy concerns, existing computer capabilities among the towns, and system costs.

The report listed the policy considerations the General Assembly would have to resolve in connection with establishing a statewide list. It concluded:

The Secretary of the State believes that it is feasible and desirable to create a central voter registry list through a computer network that could be used for many different communications between municipalities and state agencies. The cost of developing this electronic network could be justified only by using it for more purposes than that of creating a central voter registry list. Such a system could virtually do away with much of the mail and its associated costs between state and local governments and would provide timely communications and access to state and local data.

...Statutory changes will be needed to 1) mandate a central registry list; 2) delineate policies as to its use; and 3) mandate periodic updating.

The task force estimated start-up costs at $ 1,879,300 that would cover hardware and software purchases, including computer purchases for towns that had no compatible equipment. The group estimated annual operating costs of $ 326,000.

In light of the above recommendation, the task force suggested implementation of a pilot program. Costs for the pilot depended on the number of the towns participating and the level of voluntary support the secretary could expect from vendors.

1995 Pilot

In 1993, $ 1. 25 million in bond money was allocated to get the project off the ground. International Business Machines Corporation was awarded a contract in 1995 to develop the computer system. In 1995, over 20 towns participated in a pilot program, including Berlin, Bethany, Bridgeport, Brookfield, Cheshire, Cromwell, Fairfield, Farmington, Groton, Meriden, Middletown, Milford, New Hartford, Shelton, South Windsor, Southington, Stamford, Tolland, Vernon, Wallingford, West Hartford, and West Haven.

1997 Status Report

Then-Secretary Miles Rapoport reported, in January 1997 pursuant to PA 95-60, that Columbia tested the centralized voter registration system at the November 1996 election. IBM was the project contractor and, after the original pilot program, 10 towns were on-line as of December 1996. They were, in addition to Columbia: Berlin, Bethlehem, Cheshire, Cromwell, Farmington, Middletown, New Hartford, Tolland, and Vernon. An additional eight towns were then expected to be on board in February 1997. According to the report, 1998 was the target date for having the statewide system in place. The report includes discussion of additional enhancements to address other election-related responsibilities, such as absentee ballot administration, matching court records to update lists, and integration with the National Voter Registration Act's requirements for agency-based registration records.

Recent Activity

The Office of the Secretary of the State continued to develop what became known and the CONNVERSe system (Connecticut Voter Enhanced Registry System). Towns gradually signed on until all but around 30 were participating. However, to get all towns and voters on the system and resolve problems towns on the system identified, the secretary's Elections Division continued to pursue system enhancements. Last year, officials made the decision to convert to a browser-based system, according to Thomas Ferguson, Elections Division manager. Manchester has agreed to switch to the new system first and registrars from 97 other towns have already had training on the new system. The conversion will be completed after the secretary's technology staff make changes on each town's computer and DOIT staff make changes to the router from their office in East Hartford. IBM has developed the new system and is working with DOIT and a subcontractor, PCC Technology Group in Bloomfield. Ferguson expects over 140 towns to be converted by the end of July 2002.

The new system includes additional applications such as the ability to generate official voter lists, voter address labels, and election result summaries. It is expected to help with voter canvasses and redistricting changes.

The costs associated with the new system, once in place, will be for ISDN circuits that DOIT will charge for on an hourly basis for usage. The development costs for the new system for FYs 2002 and 2003 are paid from income from the secretary's Commercial Recording Account (up to $ 700,000 in each fiscal year), as authorized by Section 6 of PA 01-9, June Special Session, An Act Concerning the Expenditures of the Office of Policy and Management.

NONPARTICIPATING TOWNS

As of March 4, 2002, 27 towns were not on the centralized voter registration system, according to a list provided by the Office of the Secretary of the State's Elections Division. The towns are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Towns Not on the Centralized Voter Registration System, As Of March 4, 2002

*Committed to coming on in 2002

Eight of the state's 10 most populous towns are not participating. Of the 22 towns with populations over 40,000, 15 are not participating.

SYSTEM PROBLEMS

The secretary's office characterizes the most common problem with the system as one of "concurrency. " Databases were maintained at both DOIT and at the local level. When registrars were entering registration data, they were connected to the mainframe; but there was no indication when the telecom connection was interrupted. Therefore updated information sometimes did not wind up in both systems. Conversion to the browser-based system will resolve this problem. All data entry from the local registrars offices will go directly to DOIT's mainframe computer. There will be no need for a parallel, in-house system. DOIT has reassured the Elections Division that the direct connection will work and that it can accommodate multiple users at one time.

Based on discussions state elections officials have had with local registrars, they also identify other reasons why some towns are not participating in the statewide system.

· Registrars prefer their own computer systems.


· Registrars are reluctant to switch to the technology and hesitate to learn a new system.


· Political disagreements between the two registrars in a town or the registrars and other town officials prevent them from deciding to participate.


· Registrars have been waiting for the new, improved system to come on-line.


· Initial negative reactions to the system may have influenced some registrars.

Registrars have also described their problems with the system. For example, West Hartford is not on the system now although it was one of the towns participating in the pilot program. Officials there determined that its own in-house system is superior to the statewide system. They cited delays in getting assistance from the state. Greenwich was also on the system for a time, then pulled out. Due to connection breakdowns, the system would be unavailable for a few days. The registrars we spoke to said they would be receptive to participation, once the system problems are solved and they have confidence in the technical assistance they may need.

At the GAE Committee's public hearing on HB 5702, An Act Concerning Town Participation in the State-Wide Centralized Voter Registration System, held on March 11, 2002, South Windsor's registrar noted that, although they are participating, the system does not provide some of the reports and lists that they are accustomed to using.

SYSTEM COSTS

Since 1993, the General Assembly has authorized bond funds for implementation of the centralized voter registration system. The allocation to the secretary of the state's office has been for computerization of elections management systems that include the statewide registration list, a campaign finance statement reporting system, and "other election-related systems. " The secretary's office is providing the breakdown of expenditures for the voter registration system and we will forward that to you as soon as we receive it. We have also asked for the office's annual expenditures for the ongoing operation of the system.

OTHER STATES

As early as 1977, the Federal Election Commission's National Clearinghouse on Election Administration issued a report on statewide registration systems operating in the states. This month the Election Reform Information Project of the University of Richmond, supported by the Pew Charitable Trusts, published a briefing paper on

"Statewide Voter Registration Databases". The report is available at the project Website www. electionline. org. It separates the statewide systems into four categories and includes details describing each of the following:

· A unified database that the state and localities share (10 states).


· A state-compiled list that is a collection of local lists available to the local jurisdictions (13 states). In a hybrid of this system (seven states, including Connecticut) localities can choose to make changes directly in the state list.


· A state compilation of local lists that local officials cannot access (14 states).


· No statewide database of registered voters (13 states).

Table 2: Registration Databases in Other States

Source: Election Reform Briefing "Statewide Voter Registration Databases," The Constitution Project, March 2002

Federal Proposals

Pending legislation in Congress includes mandates for statewide voter registration systems. The election reform bill that the House passed in December 2001 (H. R. 3295) would require each state to implement a statewide registration system "networked" to each local jurisdiction and with the ability to share information across state lines. The Election Reform Briefing paper referred to above notes that legislative history from the House Administration Committee specifies "databases which simply link existing local databases do not qualify or satisfy this requirement. The intent...is to establish one database. "

The bill the Senate is still considering (S. 565) would require "an interactive, computerized stateside" registration list, accessible to each state and local election official. It allows list maintenance to be performed by either a state or local election official. Both the House and Senate legislation would also require that states establish a unique identifier for each voter.

MMJ/CP: ro