BBV: Dust-Up Over E-Vote Paper TrailÊ(Wired.com)

[Wonk]

SAN FRANCISCO -- California election officials who oppose a paper trail for electronic voting machines appear to be gearing up for a fight with the state.

Angered by California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley's announcement Friday that all e-voting machines in the state must produce a voter-verifiable paper audit trail, the election officials released their own statement on the same day saying Shelley had "overstepped his bounds" and acted unilaterally by not consulting with county election officials.

The California Association of Clerks and Election Officials, or CACEO, led by Shasta County Clerk Ann Reed, called the decision "a major defeat for the disabled community, as well as the minority-language communities."

Mischelle Townsend, registrar of voters for Riverside County, said she could not say yet whether the CACEO would pursue legal action against the state. But the group will be meeting in Sacramento next week to discuss its strategies and response. Out of 58 counties in the state, only a handful have previously stated their support for a voter-verifiable paper trail.

Shelley announced Friday that any e-voting machines purchased after July 1, 2005, must produce a voter-verifiable receipt. Machines purchased before then must be retrofitted with printers to produce a receipt by July 1, 2006.

MUCH MORE...

[punpirate]

1. The primary argument...

... in this should be in addressing these election officials' objections. Why is this bad? It's not about money--HAVA will eventually provide most of the money required for machines. If an election official objects, they ought to be pinned down on his or her objections. Most of the time, the reasons will ultimately devolve to "it's easier." That's not a good reason.

Cheers.

[Wonk]

2. kick

[lysergik]

3. Good for Shelley.

He has his head on straight and realizes the dangers of no ballot trail.

These other folks use these bogus arguments stating disadvantages to disabled persons. Guess what? The courts have said it isn't disenfranchising them, and it really isn't that hard to create a paper ballot that is verifiable by vision impaired folks, either!

I'm confused as to the minority language argument. Do these people realize that computers don't come in "languages"? A single computer can do every language in the world if it is programmed to do so. It can also print their results in parenthesis under the english name. Another piss poor argument on their behalf.

There has got to be an underlying evil lurking behind these election "officials" motives. They don't seem to make any sense from a fairness or ethical point of view.

Shelley needs our support though, send him email, snail mail, call his office let him know that people not only in California support his decision, but people from all over the country support his decision to require a voter verifiable paper ballot!

[Wonk]

4. kick

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. How does mandating a paper trail negatively affect the disabled?

Seems like a strawman argument.

[Timefortruth]

6. I'll say!

They need to try harder to make up a reason then that.

[Cleita]

7. We the electorate must insist that California election

agents comply with Shelley's request for accounting reasons. Single entry accounting is never acceptable in any circumstances because it invites fraud. Those who insist on the single entry tabulation of votes must be considered suspect and I think should be investigated.

[RedEagle]

8. Here, here

Let's begin the investigation with how much "help" these "officials' are receiving from the big three of the voting industry.

The first Weber case featured testimony from a professor who did a study that Sequoia paid for.

No conflict of interest there, huh?

Write Shelley, write the papers and remind them of Warren Slocum (Santa Clara?) and Freddie Oakley, Yolo county, who happen to be on Shelley's side.

Oops- that would be fair and balanced reporting, wouldn't it?

[oasis]

9. kick

[Zorra]

10. These "elections officials" need to be thoroughly investigated

for ties to Diebold or the republican party. There is no sane reason to oppose fully verifiable voting other than inexcusable stupidity or corrupt motives.

[RedEagle]

11. Can Ms. Townsend audit the system?

Can Ms. Mischelle open up the machine,check the code and ascertain that the machine has been functioning properly?

If she can't, then perhaps she is not fulfilling her duties as elections officer.

Have her sign and notarize statements to the effect that she guarantees that every machine in Riverside County has been 100% correct, then have her produce evidence that that is so.

Without a voter-verified paper ballot, it cannot be done.

[fujiyama]

12. I wanted to make sure about...

that photo underneat your name -- Is that Iraq?

It's really quite a photo...sort of creepy.