Report from Bowen's CA Voting Systems Senate Hearing

[Wilms]

Kim Alexander's Weblog

Thursday, January 19, 2006

Thoughts and coverage on yesterday's voting systems Senate hearing

Yesterday I, along with about 100 other folks attended a hearing at the Capitol chaired by State Senator Debra Bowen to examine the status of counties' compliance with state security and federal accessibility laws.

The first part of the hearing consisted primarily of Senator Bowen asking very specific questions of the Secretary of State's key staff people working on voting system certification. One important exchange was over the security of the systems. Senator Bowen asked Bill Wood, Undersecretary of State, what methods, besides testing and certification, the state has to ensure the security of voting systems? Sen. Bowen and Mr. Wood discussed the state's manual audit requirement, and Mr. Wood assured the senator that Secretary of State Bruce McPherson was a supporter of the paper trail and does not oppose using the paper trail as the audit document (Bowen was the author of the bill enacted last year, SB 370, that mandates the paper trail be used to publicly audit software vote counts).

Senator Bowen also asked about the status of the hack test that had been previously reported would take place with Harri Hursti. The Secretary of State is no longer pursuing this test and instead has sent the Diebold code in question back to the Independent Testing Authorities for further review. The Secretary of State's staff also reported that their own team of independent computer scientists, including professors at UC Davis and UC Berkeley and CVF Board member David Jefferson, would be reviewing the Diebold code as well, and recently published a series of documents explaining the certification process and timeline. http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_vs.htm

The most troubling news coming out of yesterday's hearing was that some county registrars are considering seeking a delay in implementing the state's voter verified paper audit trail law. Elaine Ginnold, acting registrar of voters for Alameda county, said if they fail to get the Legislature to approve an all vote-by-mail election for June, the county would consider seeking "judicial or admininstrative relief" to avoid complying with the paper trail requirement. Ira Rosenthal, registrar for Solano county, echoed this sentiment. Senator Bowen indicated she didn't think this was likely to happen, but as is well known, many registrars are not supportive of the paper trail requirement and it's not surprising that the resistance continues.

snip/links

http://calvoter.org/news/blog/index.html




January 19, 2006

Most of State's Vote Machines Not Ready for Primary Time

Electronic devices in 53 counties, including O.C., are still not certified for use in the June primary.

By Jean O. Pasco, Times Staff Writer

snip

At Wednesday's hearing, officials also revealed errors in ballot counts in Solano and Merced counties during the November special election, and said Orange County's ballots contain a serial number making it possible to tie the ballot to an individual voter — a violation of privacy requirements. McPherson has ordered the machines fixed, officials said.

snip

A dozen other people spoke, most representing voting-rights groups critical of the way electronic voting has progressed since Congress ordered election reforms after the 2000 presidential election fiasco in Florida.

Bowen demanded that McPherson make public his plan for testing a dozen systems that counties have either already bought or hope to use in June. State officials so far have distributed only a general testing plan, though systems are tested differently because each contains proprietary software.

snip

Other voting problems were acknowledged, including a lack of standards for the paper printouts that the state requires so that voters can verify their ballot choices. The printouts must be stored and used for recounts.

snip

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-machines19jan19,0,7583811.story?coll=la-headlines-california



The Daily Review (but some of the stuff I think was printed before)

01/19/2006

California legislators evaluate e-voting

Lawmakers urge elections officials to be more open about equipment problems

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

snip

"These meetings are tearing the (voters') confidence apart. They're saying every system is bad,"complained Debbie Hench, San Joaquin County registrar of voters, in a legislative hearing.

"I'm sorry you feel scrutiny and transparency is bad," said Debra Bowen, D-Marina del Rey, chairwoman of the Senate Elections and Reapportionment Committee. But, she said, making a clean breast of voting problems is essential for fixing them and regaining the voter trust that has been in decline since the 2000 presidential elections.

snip

http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_3416863

[Einsteinia]

1. More reports:

I wrote:

Everyone tells me that Bowen was so incredibly sharp--hanging on to long, long, detailed exposition and then cross-examining with precision.

I hear that the Hench of San Joaquin interchange was quite comical--that Hench's flat responses kept twisting and turning every time she'd get cornered. I understand that we're going to get a video copy of this. I'd love to grab some clips off it and distribute them when it comes out--if it's as incredible as everyone tells me.

I understand this hearing was an incredible success, except for the news that McPherson is now insisting the the "assistive devices" get certified before RoVs can purchase them.

I heard from someone who attended

:Yes, Ms. Hench came across as very pompous and the Oakland Tribune captured the perfect moment when she basically said that having public hearings and asking questions is what’s causing all of the problems and undermining public confidence.  The gentleman from Solano County looked equally bad, in my opinion, because he basically said, “Nah, there were no real problems and there’s no need to disclose any problems with the voting systems unless we deem it appropriate to disclose them.”

[Wilms]

2. What are the "assistive devices"?

You wrote:

"I understand this hearing was an incredible success, except for the news that McPherson is now insisting the the "assistive devices" get certified before RoVs can purchase them."

What are they? Vote-PAD?? (Yolo County is (was going to) use them.)

[Einsteinia]

3. "Assistive Devices" are systems that were

able to avoid the designation of "voting systems" and thereby didn't previously have to jump through all the hoops to be certified.

The are the systems that help the disabled vote without assistance. There are some options that do not require a DRE.

[Wilms]

5. Can you be specific as to manufacturer?

Is Vote-PAD among the referred "assistive devices"?

[Einsteinia]

10. Yes, that's one. . .

another is Equalivote

[Wilms]

11. Got a link for that. I tried googlin and came up empty.

Bowen was on the radio mentioning something about the difference between a "Voting System" needing ITA approval and an "Assistive Device" which didn't, and how someone was trying to define Vote-PAD as a system which would hurl the hurdle of ITA testing onto the item. I think I could see that argument. Aren't the things you use for the disabled supposed to have fed certification? :shrug:

Go to this thread for an mp3 of the interview.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x410127


-on edit-

California: How Yolo Citizens Will Vote in 2006

By Freddie Oakley, Yolo county California Clerk/Recorder

January 21, 2006

snip

In the end, they recommended we buy and deploy a computer-based system called the “Automark”, manufactured and sold by Election Systems and Software, Inc. of Omaha, Nebraska. Coincidentally, the ES&S system is the only new voting system certified for use in California by California Secretary of State, Bruce McPherson. Secretary McPherson has been painstaking in the matter of system certifications, and rightly so. Every person’s vote is of inestimable value, and the system that records them needs to be as good as possible.

Unfortunately, ES&S’s position as the sole certified vendor in California places their customers in an awkward position. How do you negotiate when there is only one candidate for your business?

Here in Yolo, we found that the company refused to meet our contractual requirements in some very important areas. Most disturbing was their refusal to give us the right to control who among their service people would have access to our computers and software. I’m pretty implacable on that demand. In an industry where crimes including bribery and kickbacks have been proved, and where one line of computer code could change the outcome of an election, I’m not giving in.

So we started looking for another option, and we found one. The Vote-PAD is an assistive device developed by a former technical writer and voting activist in Washington who set out to create a low-tech solution to meet the needs of voters with disabilities. Her intelligent, thoughtful design is, we believe, the perfect solution for counties who don’t want to spend a fortune on fancy black-box machines and do want to keep the control of elections close to home and open to the public.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=811&Itemid=113

[Amaryllis]

4. Kick.

[Peace Patriot]

6. Thanks for posting this, Wilms! The former chief salesperson for Diebold

in Calif is now ass't register in Solano County. Deborah Seiler. Works under Ira Rosenthal--who doesn't want a paper trail, and is goiing to sue to avoid the requirement (see OP above). (Paper trails make it harder for them to lord it over voters, candidates and election officials.)

------

More on Seiler. It seems she worked for that gem Bill Jones (former CA Sec of State, Repug) and his chief aide Alfie Charles, who brought this electronic voting disaster to California, authorized (among others) Sequoia machines, then went to work for Sequoia. While working at Diebold, Seiler helped sell Solano County nearly 1,200 touchscreen voting machines that were not officially certified and were later banned and returned to their manufacturer. Then Rosenthal turns around and hires her. One county supe was furious. (See article below.) Seiler's looking to me like a whirlwind thief of democracy.

-----

From Kim Alexander's blog at: http://www.calvoter.org/news/blog/2004_09_01_blogarchive.html

Ex-Diebold employee to run Solano elections 


By Warren Lutz, The Daily Republic, September 29, 2004

Excerpts:

Diebold Election Systems may have lost Solano County's voting machine contract, but that didn't stop the county from hiring a former Diebold employee to run local elections.

Deborah Seiler - who helped sell Solano County nearly 1,200 touchscreen voting machines that were not officially certified and were later banned and returned to their manufacturer - became Solano County's elections manager this week.

Although a county official described Seiler as the most qualified candidate for the job, the move jarred at least one county supervisor who voted to end the county's contract with Diebold several months ago.

"I am so angry," District 1 Supervisor Barbara Kondylis said. "And it's done without telling us. I got it from another employee."

------

One of four finalists for the elections manager job, Seiler was the best qualified to take the helm of the county elections division, Chief Information Officer Ira Rosenthal said.

Former Registrar of Voters Laura Winslow resigned last spring. The county has since moved the Elections Department under the Department of Information Technology, which Rosenthal oversees.

Rosenthal said he expected Seiler's hiring might ruffle the feathers of supervisors who were critical of Diebold before and after the March primary, when the company's Accu-Vote TSx machines were used for the first and last time.

In June, the board threw out its contract with Diebold, which has faced criticism that their machines were insecure and could be tampered with.

But Rosenthal stood by Seiler, who was the unanimous choice of a three-person hiring committee.

"She's absolutely the best person for the job, especially long term, for what this county needs," he said. "I don't think you can put the company we dealt with and the people in the same box."

Seiler spent eight years working for Sequoia Voting Systems, a competitor of both Diebold and Election Systems and Software, the vendor Solano County chose to replace Diebold's equipment. She also spent 12 years working for the Secretary of State's election division.

"She's very well respected as someone who knows election law and procedures and has been an adviser to election officials for some time," said Alfie Charles, a Sequoia spokesman.

While it's relatively common for election officials to take jobs in the private sector, it's somewhat rare for people in the elections equipment industry to take government jobs.

Kondylis said Seiler's qualifications are "excellent" but was afraid how the public would view her hiring considering Diebold's problems.

(# 10:07 AM)

--------------------------------------

I see from Wilm's posted speaker's list, below, that Deborah Seiler was a speaker. Anybody remember what she said?

[Wilms]

7. Got links to some written testimony, here.

INFORMATIONAL HEARING

VOTING SYSTEM UPDATE: HOW WILL CALIFORNIA VOTERS BE CASTING THEIR BALLOTS IN 2006?

JANUARY 18, 2006


I. Opening Statements


o Senator Debra Bowen, Chairwoman

o Senator Jim Battin, Vice-Chairman


II. Scheduled Testimony

o William P. Wood, Undersecretary of State

o Deborah Seiler, Elections Manager, Solano County

o Jill LaVine, Registrar of Voters, Sacramento County

o Elaine Ginnold, Registrar of Voters, Alameda County

o Conny McCormack, Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, Los Angeles County

o Neal Kelley, Registrar of Voters, Orange County

o Deborah Hench, Registrar of Voters, San Joaquin County

o Cathy Darling, County Clerk-Registrar of Voters, Shasta County

o Written testimony of David L. Dill, Verified Voting Foundation


III. Public Testimony (Sign-in Order)

IV. Closing Remarks

BACKGROUND, CHART

http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/COMMITTEE/STANDING/EL/_home/HearingAgendas/Agenda1-18-06.htm


Standing Committees~ Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments

Hearings Page
http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/COMMITTEE/STANDING/EL/_home/HEARINGS.HTP

[FogerRox]

8. further review is --

"The Secretary of State is no longer pursuing this test and instead has sent the Diebold code in question back to the Independent Testing Authorities for further review. "

Was it called interpretive code? And the ITA will do what exactly?

[Wilms]

9. I think it's popcorn time.

Why should CA even bother to do the The Hursti Hack (sung to The Monster Mash)? Look at the trouble Diebold (threatening letters) and ES&S (backing out of supplying Automark) is causing Leon. Plus all it will do is re-prove the hack.

So McPherson should do and is doing two things (and the Florida SoS should, but hasn't my knowledge) 1. Refuse to recertify. 2. Have the ITA to look it over...software the ITA never should have approved in the first place. http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=651&Itemid=51

So we have the CA SoS sending Diebold to the ITA And we have the whole election reform world watching for what the ITA will do. http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=654&Itemid=27

You asked, "And the ITA will do what exactly?". Yes! What are they (and Diebold and everyone using those machines nationwide) going to do?