May 31, 2009
BradBlog's internet voting exposé
BRAD BLOG: "Virtually Voting: Bush's U.S. EAC Chair Cashes In to Head Company Running 'All-Digital' Elections: Paul DeGregorio's 'Everyone Counts' was paid to carry out fully unverifiable, unsecure Internet, phone election in Honolulu; voter participation plummets 83 percent to boot..."
May 28, 2009
Second letter to the editor re write-ins
PhillyBurbs.com, letter to the editor of the Intelligencer, May 28, 2009:
Bucks machines get negative vote
To the Editor:
The assumption in your editorial, "Learning how to vote," that it is the responsibility of voters to know how to vote on a voting machine, is flawed. Tests of mental acuity, literacy or mechanical ability cannot be used to determine who can vote, and therefore, the voter cannot be required to know how to vote on a machine.
The Danaher voting machine we use here makes counting the votes easier for the election officials, but it places obstacles in the way of voters having their intended votes accurately counted.
The use of the write-in function is only one of the obstacles. The voters may not know that there are write-in instructions because they are on the left side of the machine, instead of next to the write-in mechanism itself, where voters might see them, if they are tall enough. If the voters do master the write-in function, after they finish pushing the buttons for all their candidates on the ballot, they also need to remember to push the "vote" button at the bottom of the machine to cast the ballot.
But the biggest problem with this voting machine is that there is no way to know if the voters' intended votes have been accurately counted, as there is no permanent paper record of these votes, external to and independent of the machine's software programming. Ironically, only the handwritten write-in votes can actually be seen and counted.
Bucks County commissioners need to discontinue the use of this Danaher voting machine and replace it with an easier and more accurate method of voting. Voters need to mark their votes themselves on a paper ballot so that a permanent record of all their votes exists for an accurate count, and recount if necessary.
Madeline Rawley
Doylestown
May 24, 2009
Letter to the editor re write-ins
PhillyBurbs.com, letter to the editor of the Intelligencer, May 24, 2009:
1 vote, 2 vote, 3 vote
To the Editor:
The problems with write-in votes in our recent primary were not, as the Bucks County Board of Elections and your recent editorial suggest, exclusively the fault of voters failing to follow instructions.
I attempted to write in a vote at my poll and followed the instructions to the letter. When the door lifted for me to enter my vote, a previous voter's mark was already there.
Attempting to rectify the situation, the judge of elections joined me inside the booth while speaking directly to the Board of Elections. He reset the machine as instructed, marked the paper indicating the reset, and we repeated the write-in process. This time when the door opened, the judge's signature was visible where my vote should have gone.
For my third attempt, I was led to a different machine, where I repeated the process again and was finally able to cast my vote. Meanwhile, the first machine was closed down as inoperable. It remained that way for at least an hour until the machine technicians arrived and replaced the paper-feed mechanism. When they tested the replacement, it also failed before any voter had been near the machine. They replaced it again with a third device before fixing the problem.
The electronic machines purchased by the county continue to have significant problems, especially with write-ins. And, of course, we still remain at the mercy of the software inside the machines - absolutely unable to verify whether the final vote totals accurately reflect the voters' actual selections.
What we still need is an optical-scan system employing paper ballots that are marked by the voters' own hands, counted electronically for efficiency and retained securely for recounts and random auditing of machine accuracy. Until then, we will continue to disenfranchise voters and frustrate their will in the birthplace of democracy. What an embarrassment.
And, for the record, I have no idea if I cast one or three votes for all the other races on the ballot last Tuesday, and no one else knows, either.
Neil Samuels
Doylestown Township
The writer is vice chairman of the Bucks County Democratic Committee.
Intelligencer re write-ins
PhillyBurbs.com: "Learning how to vote," Intelligencer editorial, May 22, 2009. ". . . The county's Danaher machines have come in for a lot of criticism because they don't provide a verifiable paper trail and are thought to be vulnerable to tampering. If brute force were required to open the write-in window, that would be another strike against the machines. But pushing a button to open the shutter doesn't sound too terribly difficult. . . ."
Note: This webmaster DOES have sympathy for those voters who were confounded by the Danaher machines when they tried to write in a candidate. This voter was likewise frustrated by the total absence of a user-friendly, intuitive interface. Commissioner Cawley likes to think of 25-year-old technology as tried and true. The fact is that 25-year-old technology is by definition obsolete. We've traveled light years since this machine was designed. The Danaher is a dinosaur.
Note: This webmaster DOES have sympathy for those voters who were confounded by the Danaher machines when they tried to write in a candidate. This voter was likewise frustrated by the total absence of a user-friendly, intuitive interface. Commissioner Cawley likes to think of 25-year-old technology as tried and true. The fact is that 25-year-old technology is by definition obsolete. We've traveled light years since this machine was designed. The Danaher is a dinosaur.
"Europe Rejects Digital Voting Machines"
"Europe Rejects Digital Voting Machines," Newsweek, June 1, 2009: ". . . A backlash against e-voting is brewing all over the continent. . . ."
May 23, 2009
Election rules broken in Morrisville
PhillyBurbs.com: "A question of fairness," by Kate Fratti, Bucks County Courier Times, May 20, 2009: ". . . Process matters. The potential for impropriety was there at the poll, and voters deserve better. . . ."
May 21, 2009
Write-in vote procedure misunderstood
PhillyBurbs.com: "Voters cause some machines to falter," by Jenna Portnoy, Intelligencer, May 21, 2009: "Bucks County voters who tried to write in the names of candidates not on the primary ballot Tuesday caused machines to falter - same as they did in the primary two years ago. . . ."
May 20, 2009
"Machines malfunction in 5 towns"
PhillyBurbs.com: "Machines malfunction in 5 towns," by George Mattar, Bucks County Courier Times, May 20, 2009:
Election night turned chaotic in five municipalities as some voting machines were reported either broken or jammed late Tuesday.
Bristol, Wrightstown, Falls, Tullytown and Morrisville all reported voting machine troubles.
County spokeswoman Stacey Hajdak said the Board of Elections will be looking into this problem immediately.
I can't tell you the exact problems of each machine until a technician examines it. Those answers should be available [today],'' she said.
In Wrightstown, two of the three machines in the township were jammed with paper, described as write-in ballots, said Supervisor Chairman Chester Pogonowski.
In Falls, two machines were broken at Eleanor Roosevelt Elementary School, said Democratic Supervisor Jonathan Snipes.
Two machines were reported broken in Bristol and one each in Tullytown and Morrisville.
Morrisville, Tullytown and Bristol were able to retrieve the votes from the malfunctioning machines. . . .
May 17, 2009
"Bilingual ballots likely after census"
"Voting chief: Bilingual ballots likely after census," standardspeaker.com, May 16, 2009:
Wilkes-Barre — English is the only language on the ballots for this Tuesday’s primary election in Luzerne County, but that may change after the 2010 U.S. Census, Director of Elections Leonard Piazza said at Friday’s election board meeting.
The growing Hispanic population, especially in Hazleton, will likely force the county to generate bilingual ballots after the 2010 census is done, Piazza said. If the U.S. Census shows that at least 4 percent of the voting-age population in a polling precinct is not proficient in English, then bilingual ballots for the entire municipality are required, Piazza said.
Piazza predicts a few precincts in Hazleton, Wilkes-Barre and Pittston Township will reach the qualifying percentage. But even if it’s one precinct only, all voting machines in the county will be equipped with the Spanish ballot; Piazza said the county can’t buy the Spanish ballot software for just one area. . . .
May 15, 2009
"NJ election system still has flaws"
Report: "New Jersey election system still has flaws," NewJerseyNewsroom.com, May 12, 2009. ". . . [In addition to the other flaws described in the report:] Observers from the League and ACLU contend the secrecy of the counting mechanism in the paperless machines used in these counties violates the legal requirement for an 'open and public examination' of the count."
ACLU press release re report.
ACLU press release re report.
May 9, 2009
Electronic voting machine flaw
"Flaw found in electronic voting machines," themorningcall.com, Darryl R. Isherwood, May 3, 2009:
When 197 absentee votes disappeared from an electronic voting machine in California, officials were baffled. When the machine's log showed no trace of the votes -- neither cast nor erased -- they were shocked, even angry.
The company that sells the machines said the vote-counting software in the California machines was flawed and would be fixed in a newer version. Outside California, no problems involving actual reports have been reported.
But Premier Election Solutions' search for California's problem uncovered a potentially more troubling flaw in every version of the company's software, which also is used in machines in Lehigh and eight other Pennsylvania counties. The affected machines scan paper ballots -- generally absentee votes -- and upload them to a central server.
The problem: Deleted votes do not register on the audit log in all instances and could potentially go unnoticed -- and thus uncounted -- by county election officials.
Lehigh County Clerk of Elections Stacy Sterner, who oversaw a test run of the optical scan machines in November, said she is comfortable that safeguards are in place to ensure no votes are lost. Election employees count the number of absentee votes and would be aware if a large number did not register in the final tally.
But Sterner acknowledged that a small number of missing votes might be missed by employees and, without the log showing the deletion, might not be recovered.
"If we were missing a large chunk, we would know that right away,'' Sterner said. ''But if we were missing only a small amount, that might go unnoticed.''
Formerly sold by Diebold, now known as Premier , the optical -scan machines as they as they are known, scan paper ballots -- usually absentees -- and upload vote totals to a central computer. Whether the issue uncovered in California affects Premier's touch-screen machines, used in at least 16 counties in the state, including Lehigh and Carbon, remains unclear. [continued>>]
May 5, 2009
April 30, 2009
Board of Elections meeting, April 28, 2009
PhillyBurbs.com, April 29, 2009: "Board discusses ways to improve elections: Judges of election want to count absentee ballots before the polls close, force party loyalists to keep their distance from voters and allow early voting. . . ."
Supreme Court and Voting Rights Act
"A Turning Point for Voting Rights Law: Room for Debate Blog," NYTimes.com, April 29, 2009. "The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today on the constitutionality of a central provision of the Voting Rights Act, considered one of the most effective civil rights laws passed by Congress. The provision, known as Section 5, requires states and local governments with a history of discrimination to obtain advance federal permission, or 'preclearance,' before changing their election laws."
April 8, 2009
"Pennsylvania doesn't need new voter ID law"
By Kathryn Boockvar, Morning Call, April 7, 2009. "The state Senate State Government Committee recently tabled a bill that would require photo IDs for all voters after scores of voters across the state expressed concerns about the burdens imposed by the bill. Some senators have expressed interest in revising the bill and giving it further consideration, but the Senate should listen to the voters and throw out the bill altogether." [continued>>]
April 1, 2009
Update from Brad Blog re 2009 Holt bill
The BRAD BLOG: "Holt's Election Reform Bill Edges Away from Disastrousness Prior to Introduction: 'Final' draft for introduction, committee process sees important improvement following criticism from BRAD BLOG last month; but substantive concerns still remain; a review of the good, the bad and the still ugly..."
March 31, 2009
March 29, 2009
EI groups weighing in on Holt bill
Check out CVI's "2009 Holt Bill" tab for a sampling of reactions from election integrity advocates to Rep. Holt's "Voter Confidence and Increased Accessiblity Act of 2009."
March 25, 2009
March 24, 2009
PA photo ID bill (SB 514) reprieve
Senator Charles McIlhinney (Bucks, PA) writes, "Given the concerns that have been expressed on this legislation, I have decided to delay further action on this bill until we have an opportunity to thoroughly review and discuss this legislation to address many of these concerns." Full text of the letter. Thank you, Senator McIlhinney! See also "Voter ID bill taken off table," Intelligencer, March 24, 2009.
March 20, 2009
Proposed Pennsylvania “Photo ID” Bill
Scoop: Proposed Pennsylvania “Photo ID” Bill, March 20, 2009. "A coalition of voting rights organizations expressed alarm over a proposed Pennsylvania bill that seeks to require all voters to show photo identification at every election. The voting rights advocates, including Advancement Project, a national civil rights organization with voter protection efforts in Pennsylvania, strongly oppose the legislation, and urge state policymakers to challenge the bill and hold public hearings before taking any action to move this legislation forward." Read more.
Tell your state senator to oppose photo ID bill
The Coalition for Voting Integrity urges all Pennsylvanians to contact their state senators and ask them to oppose SB 514. Senator Charles McIlhinney can be reached toll-free in Harrisburg at 1-866-739-8600 or at 1-717-787-7305 or cmcilhinney@pasen.gov; Doylestown office: 22 So. Main St., Suite 200, Doylestown, PA 18901, 215-489-5000, fax 215-489-5200; other senators at http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/find.cfm.
March 19, 2009
PA LWV "strongly opposed" to voter ID bill
A letter outlining the strong opposition of the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters to voter ID Senate Bill 514 was addressed to the Honorable Charles McIlhinney, chair of the Senate State Government Committee, and hand-delivered to its members on March 19, 2009. Text of the letter. Senate Bill 514.
PA voter ID bill opposed
Groups announce opposition to voter ID requirement, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, March 18, 2009. The twenty or so groups "include the ACLU, the Black Political Empowerment Project, Common Cause, Democracy Rising Pennsylvania, the NAACP National Voter Fund, Just Harvest, the Disability Voting Coalition and the SEIU State Council" as well as the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and the Coalition for Voting Integrity.
March 15, 2009
March 9, 2009
Inquirer re Sequoia electronic voting machines
Editorial: Electronic Voting Machines, Philadelphia Inquirer, 02/28/2009
"...It's beyond clear now that the Sequoia Voting Systems machines in use in most New Jersey counties -- and some in Pennsylvania, includingMontgomery County -- were an expensive mistake at best...."
"...It's beyond clear now that the Sequoia Voting Systems machines in use in most New Jersey counties -- and some in Pennsylvania, includingMontgomery County -- were an expensive mistake at best...."
March 8, 2009
New Version of Holt's Election Reform Bill
The BRAD BLOG: New Version of Holt's Election Reform Bill Would Institutionalize Touch-Screen Voting, Secret Software: "New Version of Holt's Election Reform Bill Would Institutionalize Touch-Screen Voting, Secret Software
Bill 'improved' to require paper ballots, but they may be marked or printed by computer devices which offer most of the same dangers as current Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) devices...
Additional concerns remain in the previously-defeated, newly-rewritten draft version of the landmark legislation..."
Bill 'improved' to require paper ballots, but they may be marked or printed by computer devices which offer most of the same dangers as current Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) devices...
Additional concerns remain in the previously-defeated, newly-rewritten draft version of the landmark legislation..."
March 7, 2009
March 3, 2009
German Court Rules E-Voting Unconstitutional
German Court Rules E-Voting Unconstitutional, Germany, Deutsche Welle, 03.03.2009
"Germany's highest court has ruled that the use of electronic voting in the last general election was unconstitutional. . . . The use of electronic voting was challenged by a father-and-son team. Political scientist Joachim Wiesner and son, physicist Ulrich Wiesner complained that push button voting was not transparent because the voter could not see what actually happened to his vote inside the computer and was required to place 'blind faith' in the technology. . . . German hacker-cum-data-protection group Chaos Computer Club has been spearheading a campaign with the Dutch foundation Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet (We don't trust voting computers) to stop the further spread of electronic voting because of fears about the risk of electronic errors and the potential for abuse."
"Germany's highest court has ruled that the use of electronic voting in the last general election was unconstitutional. . . . The use of electronic voting was challenged by a father-and-son team. Political scientist Joachim Wiesner and son, physicist Ulrich Wiesner complained that push button voting was not transparent because the voter could not see what actually happened to his vote inside the computer and was required to place 'blind faith' in the technology. . . . German hacker-cum-data-protection group Chaos Computer Club has been spearheading a campaign with the Dutch foundation Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet (We don't trust voting computers) to stop the further spread of electronic voting because of fears about the risk of electronic errors and the potential for abuse."
February 26, 2009
February 25, 2009
February 17, 2009
February 10, 2009
Creekside lawsuit extends its reach
PhillyBurbs.com: "Creekside lawsuit extends its reach, " by James McGinnis, Courier Times/Intelligencer, February 10, 2009.
February 9, 2009
Northampton wins $1.7 million voting machine judgment
County doubts it'll collect from Advanced Voting Solutions
By Tom Coombe, Morning Call, January 31, 2009
Northampton County won a nearly $2 million judgment Friday against a company that sold it faulty voting machines in 2006. Just don't look for the county to collect the money any time soon. Following a brief hearing in county court, Judge Stephen Baratta said Advanced Voting Solutions of Frisco, Texas, must pay $1.9 million, plus court costs and interest, to the county. Now the county needs to figure out how to get money from a company that seems to have vanished.
''It's sort of a shallow victory,'' said county Administration Director John Conklin, who attended the hearing. ''It puts it to bed.''
The judge made the ruling after hearing arguments from Christopher Spadoni, representing the county. No one showed up to represent the company.
''Is the other side here?'' one of the judge's staff asked Spadoni before the hearing began.
''There is no other side,'' he told her.
The county sued AVS in December 2007 after the machines -- which contained a glitch that would not allow them to be programmed to handle certain candidates -- were decertified by the Pennsylvania Department of State. The machines have sat unused in a county storeroom since 2007.
The voting machines cost $2.1 million, $1.9 million of which was covered by a federal grant. After the state decertified the machines, the county switched back to its old lever system for the November 2007 election, then spent $1.7 million to buy new machines from Sequoia Voting Systems of Denver. But since filing the suit, the county hasn't been able to contact AVS. Its phones have been disconnected and e-mails are undeliverable.
''My information is that they're not around, if that's a good phrase,'' Spadoni said. It was good enough for Baratta, who said he would sign an order for AVS to pay up. Actually getting the money might be more complicated. Spadoni said the county will ''take all appropriate steps'' to collect the judgment. Conklin said the county may need to hire a collection agency.
''There are many judgments that are never collected,'' Spadoni said. ''The taxpayers got hosed.''
By Tom Coombe, Morning Call, January 31, 2009
Northampton County won a nearly $2 million judgment Friday against a company that sold it faulty voting machines in 2006. Just don't look for the county to collect the money any time soon. Following a brief hearing in county court, Judge Stephen Baratta said Advanced Voting Solutions of Frisco, Texas, must pay $1.9 million, plus court costs and interest, to the county. Now the county needs to figure out how to get money from a company that seems to have vanished.
''It's sort of a shallow victory,'' said county Administration Director John Conklin, who attended the hearing. ''It puts it to bed.''
The judge made the ruling after hearing arguments from Christopher Spadoni, representing the county. No one showed up to represent the company.
''Is the other side here?'' one of the judge's staff asked Spadoni before the hearing began.
''There is no other side,'' he told her.
The county sued AVS in December 2007 after the machines -- which contained a glitch that would not allow them to be programmed to handle certain candidates -- were decertified by the Pennsylvania Department of State. The machines have sat unused in a county storeroom since 2007.
The voting machines cost $2.1 million, $1.9 million of which was covered by a federal grant. After the state decertified the machines, the county switched back to its old lever system for the November 2007 election, then spent $1.7 million to buy new machines from Sequoia Voting Systems of Denver. But since filing the suit, the county hasn't been able to contact AVS. Its phones have been disconnected and e-mails are undeliverable.
''My information is that they're not around, if that's a good phrase,'' Spadoni said. It was good enough for Baratta, who said he would sign an order for AVS to pay up. Actually getting the money might be more complicated. Spadoni said the county will ''take all appropriate steps'' to collect the judgment. Conklin said the county may need to hire a collection agency.
''There are many judgments that are never collected,'' Spadoni said. ''The taxpayers got hosed.''
February 1, 2009
NJ voting-method battle
Money, law, technology vie in N.J. voting-method battle, by Cynthia Henry, Philadelphia Inquirer, 02/01/2009
Efforts to ensure that all of New Jersey's voting machines produce a paper record of votes generated responses ranging from "too expensive" to "don't fix what ain't broken" last week as the issue played out at polling places, in court, and at the Statehouse.
A year behind a legislative deadline, the state is struggling to find the money and the right technology to back up machine-cast votes with a paper trail voters can see.
Only seven states, including New Jersey and most of Pennsylvania, still use paperless voting systems.
"Why is the state fighting citizens?" asked Stephanie Harris, a plaintiff in a lawsuit over voting-machine security that went to trial in Mercer County last week. "Financial issues have become the biggest obstacle to a voter-verified system."
On Jan. 5, Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells authorized retrofitting machines used in 18 of 21 New Jersey counties with printers that would provide a record in case of glitches or recounts. A small number of reconfigured machines were used with mixed results Tuesday and Wednesday in local elections in Passaic, Monmouth and Somerset Counties.
But legislative and court actions could render the machines' performance moot.
The Assembly's State Government Committee decided Monday that New Jersey could not afford to continue with the retrofitting in the weakened economy. Gov. Corzine diverted $19 million budgeted for the $26 million project back into the state's general fund last month.
Not that it matters, according to Committee Chairwoman Joan M. Quigley (D., Hudson). The technology isn't up to snuff anyway, she said.
In an August demonstration, Quigley said, a manufacturer's representative could not operate the printer that would allow voters to view their choices.
"I'm hoping, while we're waiting for the money to arrive, they can improve the technology," she said.
The Assembly could vote as early as Thursday on a bill to delay machine upgrades until the economy improves.
Also at issue are the security and reliability of the state's Sequoia AVC Advantage 9.0 voting machines. Pennsylvania's Montgomery County also uses Sequoia machines.
Plaintiffs in a four-year-old civil case contend that the Sequoia model is prone to errors and easy to hack. They hope to persuade New Jersey to replace it with paper ballots scanned by computer, which provide evidence for a recount, said Irene Goldman, chair of Coalition for Peace Action in Princeton, a party to the suit.
"Nobody wants to retrofit these machines," she said. "It's just wrongheaded."
Elections Superintendent Laura Freytes, however, said Passaic County had used Sequoia machines since 2005 with no lost votes, evidence of tampering, or other problems.
On Tuesday, the county tried Sequoia machines modified with printers in a school bond election. The printers jammed periodically, and at one polling place all three machines went down at once, Freytes said.
The new process also created longer waits to vote. "And this was just a yes-or-no question," Freytes said.
Adding that new technology intimidated some voters and poll workers, she said, "They should leave the voter machines as they are."
Quigley said she worried that voters' reviewing a long ballot through the printer's small window would significantly slow the process. She also thinks voters will expect a receipt, like the one they receive at an automatic teller machine, which the printers do not provide.
In Monmouth County, school bond voting went smoothly for more than 600 residents who were offered written instructions and demonstrations of the retrofitted Sequoia before entering the booths, said Hedra Siskel, elections superintendent.
But she, too, thinks "the state should leave the machines alone."
Since 2004, six states have passed laws to eliminate direct-recording electronic machines. No state since 2006 has retrofitted such a machine with a printer, said Sean Flaherty, a researcher for the nonprofit, nonpartisan Verified Voting Foundation. New Jersey twice delayed compliance with its voter-verification mandate, in part to give Sequoia time to design a printer.
Most states are leaning toward optical or digital scans of paper ballots, a method New Jersey county party chairs dislike, Quigley said. States report that as many as 10 percent of voters fill the ballots out incorrectly, she said.
An optical-scan system to serve all of New Jersey could cost as much as $122 million, according to the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services.
In Mercer County, Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg wanted no talk of optical-scan and other systems.
"Is it my role to determine the alternatives or is it the secretary of state's?" she said. "At the end of the trial, I'll give you some of my thoughts on this."
Feinberg pledged on the trial's opening day to keep arguments focused on the security and accuracy of the one Sequoia ADC Advantage model.
The case, which could last four weeks, is based largely on experiments in 2007 and 2008 in which Princeton University computer-science professor Andrew Appel and his team broke into the machines in "about seven minutes, using simple tools," they said. The state defends the machines' integrity with its own expert, Carnegie Mellon University computer scientist Michael Shamos.
Voters including Harris, of Hopewell, Mercer County, joined the suit because of experiences at the polls. In 2004, Harris testified, an electronic machine failed to register her vote three times.
After the fourth try, she testified, a poll worker told Harris, "I think it counted." Since then, Harris said, she has voted mostly by absentee ballot.
Efforts to ensure that all of New Jersey's voting machines produce a paper record of votes generated responses ranging from "too expensive" to "don't fix what ain't broken" last week as the issue played out at polling places, in court, and at the Statehouse.
A year behind a legislative deadline, the state is struggling to find the money and the right technology to back up machine-cast votes with a paper trail voters can see.
Only seven states, including New Jersey and most of Pennsylvania, still use paperless voting systems.
"Why is the state fighting citizens?" asked Stephanie Harris, a plaintiff in a lawsuit over voting-machine security that went to trial in Mercer County last week. "Financial issues have become the biggest obstacle to a voter-verified system."
On Jan. 5, Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells authorized retrofitting machines used in 18 of 21 New Jersey counties with printers that would provide a record in case of glitches or recounts. A small number of reconfigured machines were used with mixed results Tuesday and Wednesday in local elections in Passaic, Monmouth and Somerset Counties.
But legislative and court actions could render the machines' performance moot.
The Assembly's State Government Committee decided Monday that New Jersey could not afford to continue with the retrofitting in the weakened economy. Gov. Corzine diverted $19 million budgeted for the $26 million project back into the state's general fund last month.
Not that it matters, according to Committee Chairwoman Joan M. Quigley (D., Hudson). The technology isn't up to snuff anyway, she said.
In an August demonstration, Quigley said, a manufacturer's representative could not operate the printer that would allow voters to view their choices.
"I'm hoping, while we're waiting for the money to arrive, they can improve the technology," she said.
The Assembly could vote as early as Thursday on a bill to delay machine upgrades until the economy improves.
Also at issue are the security and reliability of the state's Sequoia AVC Advantage 9.0 voting machines. Pennsylvania's Montgomery County also uses Sequoia machines.
Plaintiffs in a four-year-old civil case contend that the Sequoia model is prone to errors and easy to hack. They hope to persuade New Jersey to replace it with paper ballots scanned by computer, which provide evidence for a recount, said Irene Goldman, chair of Coalition for Peace Action in Princeton, a party to the suit.
"Nobody wants to retrofit these machines," she said. "It's just wrongheaded."
Elections Superintendent Laura Freytes, however, said Passaic County had used Sequoia machines since 2005 with no lost votes, evidence of tampering, or other problems.
On Tuesday, the county tried Sequoia machines modified with printers in a school bond election. The printers jammed periodically, and at one polling place all three machines went down at once, Freytes said.
The new process also created longer waits to vote. "And this was just a yes-or-no question," Freytes said.
Adding that new technology intimidated some voters and poll workers, she said, "They should leave the voter machines as they are."
Quigley said she worried that voters' reviewing a long ballot through the printer's small window would significantly slow the process. She also thinks voters will expect a receipt, like the one they receive at an automatic teller machine, which the printers do not provide.
In Monmouth County, school bond voting went smoothly for more than 600 residents who were offered written instructions and demonstrations of the retrofitted Sequoia before entering the booths, said Hedra Siskel, elections superintendent.
But she, too, thinks "the state should leave the machines alone."
Since 2004, six states have passed laws to eliminate direct-recording electronic machines. No state since 2006 has retrofitted such a machine with a printer, said Sean Flaherty, a researcher for the nonprofit, nonpartisan Verified Voting Foundation. New Jersey twice delayed compliance with its voter-verification mandate, in part to give Sequoia time to design a printer.
Most states are leaning toward optical or digital scans of paper ballots, a method New Jersey county party chairs dislike, Quigley said. States report that as many as 10 percent of voters fill the ballots out incorrectly, she said.
An optical-scan system to serve all of New Jersey could cost as much as $122 million, according to the nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services.
In Mercer County, Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg wanted no talk of optical-scan and other systems.
"Is it my role to determine the alternatives or is it the secretary of state's?" she said. "At the end of the trial, I'll give you some of my thoughts on this."
Feinberg pledged on the trial's opening day to keep arguments focused on the security and accuracy of the one Sequoia ADC Advantage model.
The case, which could last four weeks, is based largely on experiments in 2007 and 2008 in which Princeton University computer-science professor Andrew Appel and his team broke into the machines in "about seven minutes, using simple tools," they said. The state defends the machines' integrity with its own expert, Carnegie Mellon University computer scientist Michael Shamos.
Voters including Harris, of Hopewell, Mercer County, joined the suit because of experiences at the polls. In 2004, Harris testified, an electronic machine failed to register her vote three times.
After the fourth try, she testified, a poll worker told Harris, "I think it counted." Since then, Harris said, she has voted mostly by absentee ballot.
January 29, 2009
January 28, 2009
January 26, 2009
Northampton's 600 worthless voting machines
Sitting in a storeroom at Northampton County's voter registration office are 600 worthless voting machines the county paid $2.1 million to get.
The good news is last month the county won a default judgment against the company that sold the faulty machines. The bad new is it's unlikely the county will collect a cent from Advanced Voting Solutions Inc. of Frisco, Texas.
''We can't find them,'' said assistant county solicitor Christopher Spadoni. ''They don't answer mail, they don't answer phones and they haven't responded to our suit. They're gone. Fade to black.'' (Continued)
January 17, 2009
January 13, 2009
January 10, 2009
January 8, 2009
December 31, 2008
December 28, 2008
July 4, 2008
Voice of the Voters' interim webpage
Temporary technical difficulties at VoiceoftheVoters.org forced us to post some programs here:
Voice of the Voters! Hosted by Mary Ann Gould, Lori Rosolowsky, and Jim Strait, with John Gideon reporting on the week's top voting news stories.
Click here to listen live Wednesdays, 8-9 PM ET, or tune into WNJC 1360AM. Call 856-227-1360 to comment/ask a question or submit in advance (by 3 PM Wednesday) at contact@VoiceoftheVoters.org. Or listen to our archived audios.
July 2, 2008: New York State’s new HAVA voting machines—are they ready for prime time? Bo Lipari, Executive Director of New Yorkers for Verified Voting, reports on the situation in New York State as new HAVA-mandated voting systems begin to be tested and delivered. State election integrity advocates fought to have some of the strictest certification standards for voting machines in the nation. Now that the machines are finally being delivered and testing has begun, initial certification testing has uncovered thousands of defects and New York counties are reporting receiving machines that don’t work.
Bill Biamonte, Nassau County Commissioner of Elections
Nassau County formally informed the court overseeing New York State’s HAVA implementation that 85% of machines delivered to them to date have not been able to pass county acceptance testing. Bill tells us about the problems they’ve encountered and what Nassau wants to do about it.
Vicky Perry, Duchess County Board of Elections Machine Coordinator
Vicky shares her observations as the new systems begin to arrive, the implications of the early problems, and the uncertainty facing the Boards of Elections as they work to deploy ballot-marking devices for the first time this year. Audio at http://www.voiceofthevotersarchive.org/VV070208.mp3.
June 25 reprise of June 18, 2008: Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, sponsor of a reform bill that includes abolition of the Electoral College; Maryland State Senator Jamin Raskin, professor of law, American U., re the national popular vote; Alexander Keyssar, professor of history and social policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government; Bill Faulkner of Verified Voting of Florida; Dan Ashby of Election Defense Alliance. Audio at http://www.voiceofthevotersarchive.org/VV070208.mp3.
June 11, 2008: Anonymous, author of Cassandra, Chanting: An Election Insider's Nightmare, discusses "How to Steal an Election" with Ellen Theisen of VotersUnite.org. Audio at http://www.voiceofthevotersarchive.org/VV070208.mp3.
Voice of the Voters! Hosted by Mary Ann Gould, Lori Rosolowsky, and Jim Strait, with John Gideon reporting on the week's top voting news stories.
Click here to listen live Wednesdays, 8-9 PM ET, or tune into WNJC 1360AM. Call 856-227-1360 to comment/ask a question or submit in advance (by 3 PM Wednesday) at contact@VoiceoftheVoters.org. Or listen to our archived audios.
July 2, 2008: New York State’s new HAVA voting machines—are they ready for prime time? Bo Lipari, Executive Director of New Yorkers for Verified Voting, reports on the situation in New York State as new HAVA-mandated voting systems begin to be tested and delivered. State election integrity advocates fought to have some of the strictest certification standards for voting machines in the nation. Now that the machines are finally being delivered and testing has begun, initial certification testing has uncovered thousands of defects and New York counties are reporting receiving machines that don’t work.
Bill Biamonte, Nassau County Commissioner of Elections
Nassau County formally informed the court overseeing New York State’s HAVA implementation that 85% of machines delivered to them to date have not been able to pass county acceptance testing. Bill tells us about the problems they’ve encountered and what Nassau wants to do about it.
Vicky Perry, Duchess County Board of Elections Machine Coordinator
Vicky shares her observations as the new systems begin to arrive, the implications of the early problems, and the uncertainty facing the Boards of Elections as they work to deploy ballot-marking devices for the first time this year. Audio at http://www.voiceofthevotersarchive.org/VV070208.mp3.
June 25 reprise of June 18, 2008: Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, sponsor of a reform bill that includes abolition of the Electoral College; Maryland State Senator Jamin Raskin, professor of law, American U., re the national popular vote; Alexander Keyssar, professor of history and social policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government; Bill Faulkner of Verified Voting of Florida; Dan Ashby of Election Defense Alliance. Audio at http://www.voiceofthevotersarchive.org/VV070208.mp3.
June 11, 2008: Anonymous, author of Cassandra, Chanting: An Election Insider's Nightmare, discusses "How to Steal an Election" with Ellen Theisen of VotersUnite.org. Audio at http://www.voiceofthevotersarchive.org/VV070208.mp3.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
