Need help responding to this - letter from my county clerk re:Hollywood

[helderheid]

Ms. Swensen is a Democrat that has been pushing for these machines... and she won.

Hi Helderheid,

I, nor anyone from my office is not attending the event in Beverly Hills. However, the event is actually an Elections Center Conference, a national organization. Conference expenses would be paid by Salt Lake County. A conference registration fee would be required. The Election Center, like other organizations, may seek sponsors to defray their expenses.

Your information about Diebold, Sequoia and ES&S is incorrect since they all have voter verifiable paper audit trails (VVPAT). During the past legislative session, a bill was passed requirng a voter verifiable paper ballot trail to be provided with electronic voting equipment. Therefore, any equipment implemented in Utah must have that feature.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sherrie Swensen
Salt Lake County Clerk

[tubbacheez]

1. One obvious response...

... would be to point out that the quality of this paper trail is what makes it useful for verification or not.

Anyone could have a machine spew out toilet paper with toner on it and then say there's a "verifiable paper trail".




Just like in buying any tech gadget, just because the outside of the box says a feature is there doesn't mean it's any good.

[flamin lib]

3. Yes, it is the sales feature vs the functional feature.

Perforated toilet tissue is a functional feature.

SCENTED toilet tissue is a sales feature.

[Chi]

2. Stay focused, one message...

"Your information about Diebold, Sequoia and ES&S is incorrect since they all have voter verifiable paper audit trails (VVPAT)."

If this is wrong, focus on proving it to her.
Forget everything else, she'll probably only give you a handful of shots to talk with her, make them count.
If you succeed, it might spawn more opportunity for the rest of your message.

My 2 cents
Sorry if it is obvious stuff.

[FogerRox]

7. Herrs a list of equipment, and the NASED list

Sequoia Edge-- has the Veri vote printer-- the Sequoia Advantage doesnt have a printer available. Most vendors have at least one machines or are coming out with a machine that has a printer.

Problem-- does the printer use the thermal type of paper-- this process doesnt hold up-- some of the VVPR may not be readable after the 2 years they are to be stored.

EAC standards:
http://www.glynn.com/eac_vvsg/intro.asp


Here is the list of NASED voting Equipment:
http://www.nased.org/ITA%20Information/NASEDQualifiedVo...


Accupoll DRE- 2002 certified
http://www.accupoll.com /
Avante opscan :
http://www.aitechnology.com/votetrakker2/accessible_opt...
Avante DRE full face- 2002 certified:
http://www.aitechnology.com/votetrakker2/evc308sprff.ht...

Danaher-Gaurdian voting systems:
http://www.danaher.com/business/niche_division.asp?key=...
DRE-looks like a full face:
http://guardianvoting.com/gvs/vs.html

Diebold:
http://www.diebold.com/dieboldes/default.htm
touchscreen:
http://www.diebold.com/dieboldes/accuvote_tsx.htm
DRE:
http://www.diebold.com/dieboldes/default.htm
opscan:
http://www.diebold.com/dieboldes/accuvote_os.htm

ES&S, Unity 2.5 is certified 2002-but am confused if its on web site
Opscan testimonial:
http://www.willclrk.com/votingsystem.htm
ES&S:
http://www.essvote.com/HTML/home.html
DRE:
http://www.essvote.com/HTML/products/ivotronic.html
DRE full Face:
http://www.essvote.com/HTML/products/ivotronicLS.html
Automark:
http://www.essvote.com/HTML/products/automark.html
OPscanner
http://www.essvote.com/HTML/products/m650.html

Hart:
http://www.hartintercivic.com /
DRE:
http://www.hartintercivic.com/innerpage.php?pageid=27
E-scan:
http://www.hartintercivic.com/files/eScan.pdf

Liberty election system- 2002 certified:
http://www.libertyelectionsystems.com/default.htm
DRE Full Face:
http://www.libertyelectionsystems.com/LibertyVote.htm

Populex- 2002 certified:
http://www.populex.com/Management.htm
This is very interesting:
http://www.populex.com/DPB_Intro.htm

[Peace Patriot]

4. I'm not familiar with the voting systems in Utah, but you might want to

check with Kathy Dopp about it. Dopp and USCV is headquartered in Utah.

I think you need to double check what she said about VVPAT and VVPB. It's simply not true that touchscreens all have VVPATs. "They all have...." They all have in Utah? They don't "all have" generally. ONE THIRD of the country voted in '04 with no paper trail of any kind. It might be interesting to ask (and to research), did they "all have" VVPAT in Utah in '04? I'll bet they didn't. "They all have..." is very vague. A key question on both VVPAT and VVPB is WHEN? Two years from now? Four years from now?

She says "ballot trail" will be required. What does this mean? A real ballot that takes precedence over electronic results in any recount? Or some slippery language like "ballot trail" by which they might ignore the "ballot"? And, WHEN? (--sometime before Bush's Armageddon, hopefully?)

I don't know what YOU asked HER, or what-all you said, so it's hard to vet her reply. But some other key questions would have to do with:
--secret, proprietary programming code;
--partisan connections of these private companies (big Bush supporters, all);
--the type of audit (mandatory recount) that is required--is it adequate? (should be 5% at minimum, but many think 10% or greater is needed);
--security measures, such as no internal modems, no internet connections during elections, no private personel wandering around during elections, etc.;
--the COST of these electronic systems, including continuing servicing costs.

-----

Re: her first points,

"...the event is actually an Elections Center Conference, a national organization."

The Republican Party is a "national organization." So what? As I understand it, the Elections Center is a very suspect organization--is funded by? was set up by? has close connections to? electronic voting companies. I don't have the info. But I suggest that you research this for a reply.

"The Election Center, like other organizations, may seek sponsors to defray their expenses."

Aye, there's the rub!

Anyway, I think the EC already has "sponsors" (organization sponsors--major donors)--and it is NO ACCIDENT that they sought Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia to sponsor the hogfest at the Beverly Hilton.

Why is she defending the Elections Center, if she's not going? (Does she have any connection to them? Has she attended any of their events in the past?)

---

One other point about this: If Salt Lake County WOULD BE paying expenses (if she or others were going), this means that the taxpayers would be paying for our election officials to go get lavishly lobbied by Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia!!!! LOOK at what these Bushite companies are DOING at this hogfest! Giving "graduation awards," etc.! Dinner/dance. Welcoming party. And they very likely CONTROL THE AGENDA of the conference as well. And WHO KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON at the cocktail parties and at the Beverly Hilton swimming pool!

I think you should ask: Has she or anyone gone to one of these lavish lobbying events IN THE PAST? And what is the policy about it? How do they regard this kind of lobbying, and what has been done to prevent corruption, and the appearance of corruption?

I think you should also ask: What is the policy on "revolving door" employment? Are there any rules or limitations? (--there is already evidence of corruption on this matter; for instance, former CA Repub Sec of State Bill Jones and his chief aide Alfie Charles now work for Sequoia--after authorizing Sequoia systems in Calif.)

[helderheid]

5. thanks everyone - here is my response

Thanks for your response. I'm glad to hear you and others in your office won't be attending the event in Beverly Hills, though I am not sure what the importance of the Election Center being a national organization is - so are the Republican and Democratic parties. Who is this organization funded by?

As for the machines all having VVPAT, this is not entirely true. It may be true that the machines Utah purchases will have this capability but not all the machines nationwide have this capability, and it is my understanding that the bill which passed was the wrong version which leaves a loophole for the machines without that capability to be grandfathered in.
By comparison to the previous bill (Substitute HB211,
introduced by Dougall and signed by the Governor), this new bill adds
a clause which didn't exist before: "for systems certified after January 2005"
--essentially grandfathering in any systems certified in the state before
that date -- in Section 205A-302, see line 75.

Then, it adds another new phrase:
"(II) shall permit the voter to inspect the record of the voter's selections independently
82 only if reasonably practicable commercial methods permitting independent inspection are
83 available at the time of certification of the voting equipment by the lieutenant governor; "

This changes the intent of the earlier law by allowing discretion
as to whether "reasonably practicable commercial methods" exist
at the time of certification, rather than REQUIRING these factors
FOR certification.

Then, it inserts a date where none existed previously (line 103-104):
(2) Before selecting or purchasing a new voting equipment system after January 1, 2007, the lieutenant governor shall:

The combination of these new factors leaves a window currently
open to permit the purchase of machines certified before Jan 1 2005
without convening any new voting equipment selection committee before
Jan 2007. While that may not seem like a problem at first, since the
state doesn't want to "undo" the work of the previous selection committee,
it turns out it creates a dangerous loophole.

So, the request for proposal (RFP) that was already issued would not be
re-issued to incorporate the state's newly approved requirement for
VVPAT, and the vendors who supplied bids on that original RFP
do not have to provide VVPAT equipment if their equipment was
certified in the state before January 1, 2005.

And we are NOW in the time frame when most of Utah's new
equipment will be purchased. States have to spend their Help America
Vote Act (HAVA) funds in order to have new equipment in place in time
for the first federal election after January 1, 2006.

When the original bill was passed, there was speculation about what
might happen with the RFP, if I recall correctly. Would it be allowed to
stand? Would it be reissued? In any case, the intent of the voters and
the new law passed in March was clear: require VVPAT. It would be
unfair to the voters of Utah to allow non-VVPAT equipment to squeak
through because of this apparent loophole.

Again, thank you for your response.

[Chi]

6. Very well done!

Excellent references, and focus.
If that doesn't raise her eyebrows, she's not interested in what's right.

Kudos helderheid

:thumbsup:

[tubbacheez]

8. Bravo.

It occurred to me that a newly elected official might be in a hurry to consider a problem "solved" so that she can claim some approximate fulfillment of a campaign point and move on.

I think that would be tempting to anyone, regardless of party, so it falls upon the concerned citizens (like you) to hold her accountable.

Good work.

[Kip Humphrey]

9. Where's the auditing of the digital vote processing system?

digital voting systems without real-time mandatory random paper audits is a deathtrap of effective election reform.

[helderheid]

10. I agree - I am SO disgusted in Utah for so many reasons

Thanks everyone for your help with this

[rumpel]

11. ..and tabulators?