All paper ballots for New Mexico: update

[Febble]

Text of email just received:

Thanks to the many supporters, organizations and active citizens who worked tirelessly on this issue and helped make the following possible. We are very close to achieving our shared goals and are committed to seeing this through to a final and successful conclusion. Three cheers for democracy and New Mexico!

Plaintiffs applaud Governor's decision.

Lawsuit remains until the plan is fully implemented.

January 13, 2006, Albuquerque - On Thursday, January 12, 2005, New Mexico’s Governor Bill Richardson and Attorney General Patricia Madrid demonstrated bold leadership by announcing a plan to make New Mexico an all-paper-ballot voting state. This is a great day for New Mexicans because it means that we will be able to cast our votes with confidence that a mechanism is in place that will allow all votes to be counted and tallied and the results verified.

The Governor said that he will introduce legislation next week, at the beginning of the 30-day 2006 state legislative session that, if adopted, will accomplish two things: 1) it will mandate the use of optical scan paper ballots in all New Mexico elections, and (2) it will provide $11 million in state funding to purchase the necessary voting systems. If the legislation is adopted by the legislature and implemented before the next election, inaccurate, unreliable and insecure electronic voting machines that produce no voter-verifiable and auditable paper record will be a thing of the past.

This Governor’s proposal is a great victory for the many concerned citizens and organizations who have tirelessly advocated the change to paper ballots. And it is a great victory for the plaintiffs in Lopategui v. Vigil-Giron, a lawsuit in which the plaintiffs sought this very result. The lawsuit, filed in January 2005, seeks an injunction barring future use of the same unreliable, paperless electronic voting machines that will be replaced under the Governor’s plan if the legislature adopts it. A catalyst for the Governor’s decision was the Lopategui plaintiffs’ recent and successful effort to temporarily restrain the Secretary of State and county clerks from beginning the purchase of additional unreliable touch screen machines.

New Mexico’s next statewide election is in June, 2006. Thus it is critical that the Governor’s proposal be implemented immediately so that all New Mexico voters will have confidence that their votes and will count and can be verified. For this reason, the Lopategui plaintiffs intend to press forward with their lawsuit, particularly with their efforts to gather evidence needed to obtain judicial relief if the legislature does not adopt the Governor’s plan , or if the statutory changes and funding adopted are too little or too late.

In the Lopategui litigation, Plaintiffs have already obtained critical evidence in discovery about the untrustworthiness of touchscreen voting systems and the serious inadequacy of the Secretary of State’s process for auditing election results. By gathering more evidence through depositions and inspection of voting systems, plaintiffs will be in a position to seek timely judicial relief should the Governor’s plan not be implemented. As soon as New Mexico can assure that all voters, regardless of the color of their skin, where they live, or their physical ability are able to cast their votes on verifiable, auditable paper ballots, plaintiffs will give final, hearty congratulations to Governor Richardson, Attorney General Madrid, and the state legislature for protecting our democracy.

Voter Action is a project of the International Humanities Center. www.voteraction.org

[TallahasseeGrannie]

1. I think we need a constitutional

amendment. Federal.

If our votes are in doubt, there is no democracy.

[RC]

2. never mind

[Febble]

3. Data on undervotes by voting technology

collected by Warren Stewart and Ellen Theisen here:

http://www.votersunite.org/info/NMStateData4.2.xls

Reports and analyses here

http://www.votersunite.org/info/NewMexico2004ElectionDataReport.pdf

and here:

http://uscountvotes.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=70&Itemid=43



(edited for typo in subject)

[Time for change]

4. This is great news

So, was this decision based on the study that you did in New Mexico, showing that DRE precincts had a very high spoilage rate and probably cost Kerry the election?

[Febble]

5. I don't know much about the lawsuit

but the data collected by Warren and Ellen played a role, I think. I don't know whether our analysis had anything to do with it, but there was certainly a naked eye effect in the data. We just put some p values on it. One thing that was very clear was that communities with ethnic minorities registered more undervotes on DREs, so the argument that DREs are supposed to "Help America Vote" wouldn't have washed.

I know very little about the lawsuit, but I just kept in touch, so I was really pleased to hear this news. New Mexico was so close!

And given that your ballots are probably too complex for you to count them the easy way, optical scanners seem like a good choice.

[Time for change]

6. Yes, I think that optical scans are the best, next to HCPB

Thanks for all your work on this.

[Melissa G]

7. Thanks for the post Febble!

[Peace Patriot]

8. In Leon County, FLA, it was the OPTISCANs that were proven hackable,

and were tossed. It doesn't sound like this legislation solves the problem of Bushite corporations (or any private corporations) owning and controlling the election system with "trade secret," proprietary programming code. And all current audit/recount processes are very inadequate for monitoring hackable, speed of light results that occur inside black boxes. It sounds like it also doesn't solve the central tabulator problem (also containing secret programming code), which is likely where the most large scale and invisible fraud can occur.

I applaud the achievement of a paper trail! That at least gives election monitors and candidates a means of verification, if they can get past Richardson's draconian bond requirements to even get a recount.

The only reason to be concerned about the speed of vote counting--re: the "complication" of our ballot, vis a via the MOST RELIABLE voting system, paper ballot HAND-COUNTED at the precinct level, with results posted at the precinct--is for the benefit of war profiteering corporate news monopolies, who want instant results, so they can "call" elections before any election result protests or calls for investigation can occur.

Speed kills! People AND democracy. To hell with speed. Accuracy and verifiability are the ONLY things of importance in elections. I don't care how complicated the ballot is. I don't care how long it takes to count it by hand. That is the most reliable voting system.

[Febble]

10. Well, I actually agree with you

as a Brit - but it is true that your ballots are more complex. On the other hand you have far more time to count them - we have to have our new government installed next day, and we still manage.

But it still seems to me that there is a huge difference in principle between optical scanners which are, essentially, an automated way of counting paper ballots, and DREs in which the counting is the ballot (same is true of lever machines, but they are obviously less hackable).

Once a state is all-paper, you can argue about how to count the paper. You can also handcount the ballots if necessary to check on the scanners. And if ballots are counted at the precinct, then you can compare the precinct count with the county tabulation.

You won't get HCPC over-night, but it'll be a damn sight easier to insist on hand-counts for a paper-ballot state than hand-counts for a DRE state, simply because in the former, paper-ballots exist, and in the latter they don't. DREs are a serious erosion of the whole concept of a ballot.

So I do think this is good news. Optical scanners are your foot in the door. But if you want to go further, I can testify that HCPB works for us!

[Febble]

11. accidental duplication (deleted post)

[Peace Patriot]

12. Yes, I applaud the achievement of a paper trail. It is, indeed, a first

step toward democracy--toward open, transparent, verifiable elections. But it is ONLY a first step. There are still huge problems of transparency and the effectiveness of audit/recount laws. And we shouldn't have to be taking this first step toward democracy at all. Open, transparent, verifiable elections should never have been an issue in the first place--ESPECIALLY in a state that has a Democratic governor and a strong Democratic Party establishment.

So, when this Democratic governor and strong Democratic Party establishment concedes a mere first step toward democracy, you have to wonder what their motives are, what hidden agendas they have, and what ELSE they may be doing to PREVENT the poor majority in New Mexico from ever achieving their rightful power in government. How might they be using this current measure (a paper trail) as a cosmetic coverup of much deeper corruption, and continued rigged elections?

Gov. Richardson is notorious for having slapped a one million dollar bond on the poor Green Party volunteers who were trying to get a recount of NM's extremely close Bush/Kerry totals. Why would Gov. Richardson not want John Kerry to win the presidential election?

Recounts are extremely hard to get in all states. A paper trail is ONLY truly useful IF the election is adequately audited with automatic recounts of sufficient randomness and quantity to detect fraud. A paper trail has some limited usefulness as a possible deterrent, and in the existing very limited audits. But, given inadequate, limited audits, it is only in a recount situation that fraud is likely to be detected, and even the recounts are limited. (I think it was a 3% recount in Ohio, and it wasn't random, due to illegal interference by Kenneth Blackwell.)

It may be that Democrats like Richardson are merely corrupt, and not complicit--that is, they have some financial ties to electronic voting firms, or are beholden to those who do, or have some interest in promoting electronics in government. Others may be outright complicit--that is, they knew perfectly well that Bushite corporations were taking over our election system with "trade secret," proprietary programming code, in conditions of vastly inadequate audit/recount controls, and they preferred it that way, because they support Bush's war and corporate rule. (I suspect Sen. Christopher Dodd, and former DNC chair Terry McAuliffe of this kind of complicity--of NOT wanting a Democratic president who was beholden to the antiwar grass roots, and throwing the election, by permitting this outrageously non-transparent, Bushite-controlled election system to be put into place).

But whatever level of betrayal we are talking about--lining their pockets, or supporting a fascist junta--Democrats who only NOW are talking of a paper trail, and are only NOW acting to provide one, are not to be trusted. And election reformists should not let the reform stop there, with the noblesse oblige granting of a "paper trail." Beware, beware!

[Febble]

13. Well, how nice

to have so many areas of agreement with you PP!

I don't know anything about NM Democratic politics, but I do agree that proper audits (random, handcounted), including as verifiable custody of ballots between casting, counting and recounting is the next step.

But I would argue that the paper ballots are very much more than a "paper trail" and different in kind to the kind of "receipt" proposed for DREs. Legally, these are paper ballots. A huge step, and one that should be ratchetted firmly in place. Next step is to make sure they are counted properly!

Do you know about David Mills' lawsuit in Tennessee? He is arguing that DREs fuse two legal entities (ballot and box) into one (the box becomes the ballot) and that this represents an erosion of voters' rights.

I'd argue that there are three legal entities: the ballot; the casting of the ballot; and the counting of the ballot, all three of which are fused in DREs. With optical scanned paper ballots, they remain legally separate, as they should.

So no - don't stop there! But I think this is step is a very important precedent for all sorts of reasons! Good luck!

[Wilms]

9. .