Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News, Thursday 2/9/06

[Wilms]

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News

Please "Recommend" for the Greatest Page (it's the link just below).

[Wilms]

1. AK: Diebold Waives Proprietary Rights to Election File - Issues Remain

Alaska: Diebold Waives Proprietary Rights to Election File

Democrats May Receive Data But Issues Remain Unresolved

By Kay Brown, Alaska Democratic Party

February 08, 2006

In response to a public records request from the Alaska Democratic Party, Diebold Election Systems has agreed to waive its proprietary rights to the electronic file that contains the results of Alaska's 2004 general election.

The Alaska Division of Elections earlier refused to release the electronic database file, claiming it was proprietary information owned by Diebold.

The Division of Elections informed the Alaska Democratic Party (ADP) that it will provide the file "if it is determined that the integrity of the election system can be protected." At the request of the Division, the Democratic Party agreed to give the Division until Feb. 13 to provide the public records.

"We're cautiously optimistic that the remaining issues will be resolved satisfactorily and that we'll receive the data we need to verify the 2004 election results," said Alaska Democratic Party Chair Jake Metcalfe.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=893&Itemid=113

[Wilms]

2. NE: Testimony in Support of Bill To Allow Manual Recounts

Testimony in Support of Bill To Allow Manual Recounts In Nebraska

By Don Eret, former Nebraska State Senator

February 08, 2006

On January 19, 2006, the Nebraska Legislature’s Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on LB 1013, a bill that would allow for a manual recount. Currently manual recounts are effectively prohibited in the state’s election code. The committee in a 6-0-2 vote indefinitely postponed action on the bill.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=889&Itemid=113

[Wilms]

3. Florida Grasps At Straws To Prevent Paper Ballots

Florida Grasps At Straws To Prevent Paper Ballots

By Susan Pynchon, Florida Fair Elections Coaltion

February 08, 2006

The Florida Division of Elections is determined to thwart counties in the state that want to retain paper based voting. According to an article in the Orlando Sentinel, David R. Drury, chief of the state's Bureau of Voting Systems Certification, sent an e-mail to all 67 election supervisors Wednesday saying his agency "cannot recommend certification at this time" for the Automark ballot marking device. Marketed by Election Systems and Software, the Automark is an assistive device that provides an interface that allows disabled voters to mark an optical scan ballot. The device, which is federally certified to the current voting system standards and will be used in well over half the states has been languishing at Florida's Division of Elections for a full year. Meanwhile, the Diebold TSx was certified in just 29 days (application on March 1, 2005; certification on March 29, 2005), despite numerous problems that showed up during testing, none of which have ever been addressed.

But the reason given for the state’s denial of certification is specious and reveals a determination on the part of state election officials to force Florida counties to purchase unreliable voting technology that cannot be audited and will not allow for a meaningful recount.

According to a memo from Florida's Division of Elections, the state law used to deny certification to the AutoMark is Florida Statute Section 101.56062 (1)(n) 7 which states that an audio ballot system "…must communicate to the voter the fact that the voter has failed to vote in a race or has failed to vote the number of allowable candidates in any race and require the voter to confirm his or her intent to undervote before casting the ballot." However, neither Florida law nor the Help America Vote Act say at exactly what point a voter must be able to review his/her ballot before it is cast, nor does either law require a review of the entire ballot. Further, neither law mandates that review of the ballot must be the FINAL step before casting the ballot, but simply states that a voter must be notified that he/she has undervoted and be able to review his/her decision to undervote. The AutoMark both notifies the voter of his/her undervotes and allows the voter to review his/her undervotes.

For several other reasons, the Division of Elections reasons for denying certification do not hold water. First, there is no "cast ballot" command on an AutoMark. The AutoMark cannot cast a ballot - it is not counting or storing ballots. It is a ballot-marker, not a ballot counter. Secondly, for a multi-page ballot, the AutoMark notifies the voter after each race if he/she has undervoted and gives the voter the choice of going back and voting that race or continuing without voting that race. Then, at the end of the first ballot (both sides), the AutoMark gives the voter the opportunity to go back and review that ballot (both sides), and is once again notified of any races that have been undervoted. On the second ballot (both sides), the above scenario is repeated: the AutoMark notifies the voter after each race if he/she has undervoted and gives the voter the choice of going back and voting that race or continuing without voting that race. Then, at the end of the second ballot (both sides), the AutoMark gives the voter the opportunity to go back and review that ballot (both sides), and is once again notified of any races that have been undervoted. If the voter wants to check a third time regarding undervotes, the voter could re-insert one or both ballots and review his/her choices again, including undervoted races. In addition, most optical scan systems can be set to notify the voter of undervotes. This would actually be a fourth notification to a voter with disabilities that he/she has chosen to undervote.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=888&Itemid=113

[Wilms]

4. VA: House Comm. Passes Robust Paper Bill After Senate Comm Defeats It

Virginia House Committee Passes Robust Paper Trail Bill After Senate Committee Defeats It

By Ivy Main, New ERA for Virginia

February 06, 2006

An exciting series of meetings in the Virginia legislature this past week saw the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee see-saw on SB 424, an omnibus election bill calling for voter verified paper records, mandatory audits, public disclosure of voting system software and other issues before finally rejecting it. The Senate committee initially passed the bill 7-5 (with 2 absentions) and then 30 minutes later, after a motion to reconsider in which Sen. H. Russell Potts (R-27th) switched his vote, which effectively killed the bill for this session. Then three days later, the counterpart committee in the House passed a similar bill HB 1243 out of committee. HB 1243 now moves to the Appropriations Committee, whose chairman, Del. Vincent Callahan, Jr (R-27, pictured at right), has already promised his support.

Lobbyists from Virginia Verified Voting and the New Electoral Reform Alliance for Virginia had expected a stronger showing in the Senate committee, where supporters had seemed to outnumber opponents. Strong opposition from registrars across the state, however, apparently led some supporters to seek a compromise in a narrower bill that would require the State Board of Elections to conduct a pilot project testing paper audit trail technology in a few jurisdictions. That pilot project bill (SB 272) lacked other important components of SB 424, including a ban on wireless communication, source code review capability, random audits and recount provisions.

Over in the House, HB 1243 incorporates all the broader provisions, to take effect in 2009, as well as the pilot project, which would begin this year. Although the usual procedure is for bills to be assigned to a subcommittee first, in this case HB 1243 went directly to the full Privileges and Elections Committee on very short notice.

The presence of activists from Virginia Verified Voting and New ERA for Virginia and their testimony proved important, because several State Board of Elections officials and registrars also attended and spoke against the bill, arguing that their tests have not revealed problems with DREs. However, one registrar with a technical background broke ranks to testify about the problems inherent in DREs.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=882&Itemid=113

[Wilms]

5. California Holds Hearing on Open Source Software in Election Systems

California Holds Hearing on Open Source Software in Election Systems

February 8, 2006

By Wayne Hanson

Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach, Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee, and a candidate for California Secretary of State, conducted a hearing today to look at how private companies, as well as state and federal agencies, have begun using "open source software" and where it can or should be used in California's electoral system.

"Open source software has been around for several decades, but it's become more popular in recent years," said Bowen in a release prior to the meeting. "Some of the more well-known names in the open source software world are Firefox (an Internet browser), Linux (an operating system), and Red Hat (which sells and supports a version of Linux for businesses). A number of private businesses, including Bank of America, Amazon.com, America Online (AOL), DreamWorks, Charles Schwab, IBM, and Merrill Lynch, have begun using open source software for some applications. Furthermore, the Department of Defense, the State of Massachusetts, and the California Air Resources Board have begun to migrate some of their computer systems from proprietary to open source software.

"We've worked hard to make elections more transparent over the years by, for example, making it easier for voters to track campaign contributions, but when it comes to the fundamental issue of how the accuracy of the election results are ensured, voters are left completely in the dark," noted Bowen. "We're in the middle of an intense discussion over whether voting systems that rely on proprietary software, such as Diebold, should be certified or re-certified for use here in California for the 2006 elections. I want to look further ahead at what alternatives we have to trusting the vote-recording and vote-tallying processes to closed, proprietary software systems that have turned out to be fatally flawed."

Hearing testimony dove quickly into very technical points around source code, object code, public licenses of various types, and business models around "free" open source software. Bowen, who has some technology credibility herself, asked questions to help clarify points for listeners, but on top of the complexities of voting systems, the technical merits of open source code, business models and bug fixes may have been daunting for all but the most technical in the audience.

snip

http://www.govtech.net/news/news.php?id=98361

[Wilms]

6. CA: Re-WebCast February 9 at 12PM PST - Open Source Software Hearing

Does Open Source Software Have A Place In California's Electoral System?

Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), Chairwoman of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee

2006/02/06

The Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee will hold a hearing to look at how private companies, as well as state and federal agencies, have begun using “open source software” and where it can or should be used in California’s electoral system.

Wednesday, February 8, 2006, at 9:00 a.m.

snip

Witnesses scheduled to testify before the committee include:

* Andrew Aitken, Founder and Managing Partner, Olliance Group

* Michael Evans, Vice President, Corporate Development, Red Hat

* Bill Welty, Chief Information Officer, California Air Resources Board Invited.

* Deirdre Mulligan, Director, Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic, Boalt Hall, University of California, Berkeley

* Peter G. Neumann, Principal Scientist, Computer Science Laboratory SRI International

* Joe Hall, PhD Student, School of Information Management and Systems, University of California, Berkeley

* Election Systems and Software, Inc. (ES&S) Invited.

* Diebold Election Systems Invited.

* Hart InterCivic Declined to attend.

* Sequoia Voting Systems Invited.

Member of the public may testify once the scheduled witnesses have finished their remarks.


http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/templates/SDCTemplate.asp?a=4920&z=69&cp=PressRelease&pg=article&fpg=senpressreleases&sln=Bowen&sdn=28

WebCast
http://www.calchannel.com/webcast.htm

[Wilms]

7. CA: CA Senate Hearing on Open Source

Not Quite a Blog 2.0

CA Senate Hearing on Open Source

02/08/06

by Joseph Lorenzo Hall

Peter mostly talked from his written testimony ("The Relative Merits of Openness in Voting Systems" (PDF)) and was lucid as ever; his testimony is a fun must-read. He talked about the beginnings of SE Linux in the 1970s and explained the illusion of security through obscurity with particular candor.

Deirdre talked about what we've been calling the enclosure of transparency over the history of voting in the U.S. as well as ways to increase transparency and how open and disclosed source do or don't align with the goals of the State.

In my testimony, I talked about three things: barriers to the use of open source software in elections, what business models used right now in other areas of open source may or may not easily translate to the voting systems market and the Australian experience with the eVACS voting system (which was procured and delivered under the GNU GPL but did not use open source development methods). Deirdre and my joint testimony will be available soon.

The last panel was supposed to be a vendor panel but none of them showed. Diebold Election Systems, Inc. (DESI) and Hart Intercivic both declined to attend while Sequoia Voting Systems and Election Systems and Software never answered the invitation to attend. Senator Bowen even said that if they refused to attend, she'd have to subpoena them to get them to testify. The ITAA's Election Technology Council did release a decent statement that will be posted eventually as well.

snip/links

http://josephhall.org/nqb2/index.php/2006/02/08/ca_sen_os

[Wilms]

8. CA: SoS Report - Open Source Software in Voting Systems

A REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

Open Source Software in Voting Systems

JANUARY 2006

Bruce McPherson, Secretary of State

snip

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Secretary of State’s Office has spent considerable time exploring the issue
of open source software in an effort to arrive at recommendations that are both
reasonable and viable. The list of available information on the subject is
enormous. Expert opinions on the topic span the spectrum from unconditional
support to serious opposition.

After extensive investigation, it is clear that significant further examination of
open source software in voting systems is needed. While there may be benefits
associated with using open source software, they are neither empirical nor
measurable. There is no precedent that fully supports the feasibility of a potential
effort to develop, deploy, and maintain an open source election system.
The creation and maintenance of secure, reliable, and usable voting systems is
crucial to ensuring voter confidence. And while, to date, California has the most
rigorous voting systems certification process in the nation, anything that furthers
the integrity of the voting process deserves careful consideration. Decisions on
this subject cannot be rushed, especially in an environment where technology is
constantly evolving.

Unresolved issues include a number of determinations. For example, should
open source be available for all to review as opposed to being restricted to
certain individuals or groups of individuals; should the source code for the voting
machines and vote tallying systems be disclosed or should access be restricted
to the software for the voting systems? Also for consideration is the question of
who should be empowered to test and critique such systems. In addition, if
modifications are necessary, should there be a public review component
incorporated into the process? These are but a few of the complex issues that
must be fully reviewed before any recommendations relating to the use of open
source code in voting systems can be provided.

In conclusion, the use of open source software in voting systems is a topic that
requires substantial further review. It is a far more complex issue than simply
determining if open source software should be used in voting systems.
Therefore, the Office of the Secretary of State recommends further review of the
issues and that the California State Legislature establishes a panel of experts
from both the public and private sectors (including voting system manufacturers,
academia, and others) to further evaluate the future of open source software in
voting systems.

snip

.pdf
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/open_source_report.pdf

[Wilms]

9. MD: (Look at this headline) Liberals push to give vote to felons

Terrorists Next??

Liberals push to give vote to felons

By S.A. Miller

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

February 8, 2006

ANNAPOLIS -- Dozens of House Democrats have co-sponsored a bill that would restore voting rights for thousands of felons this election year.

The Maryland Democratic Party has endorsed the measure, which some House Democrats attribute to the party's aim to oust Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican seeking re-election.

"Of course that's the reason," said Delegate Jill P. Carter, Baltimore Democrat and one of the bill's 37 co-sponsors. "But I am just thankful for whatever reason the party has got behind it."

"It will make a difference if the Democrat-controlled General Assembly gives the vote," said Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, Baltimore Democrat and the bill's lead sponsor.

snip

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20060207-101738-6911r.htm

[Wilms]

15. MD: Editorial - Leaving a paper trail to follow

Examiner Editorial - Leaving a paper trail to follow

February 8, 2006

So now it's just the money that's preventing Maryland State Elections Administrator Linda Lamone from requiring paper records of all elections? That's funny. Last year Lamone was insisting that a paper trail wasn't necessary because Maryland's Diebold electronic touch-screen voting machines were tamperproof and secure.

That was before Dec. 13, when an election supervisor in Florida allowed a hacker to change voting results on a Diebold optical scan machine, something that wasn't supposed to happen. Ever. When the integrity of the election system is dependent on the integrity of a single individual, we're all in trouble.

In a Dec. 23 letter to Diebold CEO Thomas Swidarski, Lamone reportedly asked for an explanation of the Florida test in which Harri Hursti, a Finnish computer programmer, successfully hacked into a non-networked Diebold machine from outside the warehouse in Leon County where the test was being conducted. In a maneuver now know as the Hursti Hack, he managed to change two "Yes" votes to seven and six "No" votes to one. Significantly, test participant Susan Pynchon noted that the paper ballots also cast "were the ONLY evidence" available to discredit Hursti's vote tampering.

Diebold spokesman David Bear later told reporters that Hursti only got in the system because the supervisor was not following proper procedures, but the Takoma Park-based TrueVoteMD reported that Diebold has admitted to Pennsylvania officials that hackable code can be found on the memory cards of all its machines. California officials have already decertified Diebold's touch-screen machines, as federal law requires that election systems be impervious to tampering by both outsiders and insiders.

snip

http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2006/02/08/opinion/editorial/08aedit09papertrail.txt

[Wilms]

27. Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x412406#top

[Wilms]

10. MN: Voting machine dispute continues - Officials seeking waiver in dispute

Voting machine dispute continues
Officials seeking waiver in dispute

BY ALEX FRIEDRICH
Pioneer Press

Feb. 08, 2006

Officials in Washington and Ramsey counties are trying to sidestep Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer after failing to resolve their disagreement over what voting equipment to buy for disabled voters.

On Tuesday, officials in each county formally asked the state auditor to allow them to purchase the equipment they prefer despite Kiffmeyer's rejection of it. The auditor is expected to make a decision within 60 days.

Two other metro counties — Dakota and Anoka — are in the same predicament; Anoka likely will discuss a request for the same waiver later this month.

Like its counterparts, Washington County bought high-tech voting equipment a few years ago — and is now chafing under state orders to change brands when it procures additional equipment for disabled voters. County officials say they have perfectly good equipment, and a switch would waste hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars.

snip

http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/13817241.htm

[Wilms]

11. MN & MA: Ritchie & Bonifaz Interview

Answering the S.O.S. for Election Reform

By Jan Frel, AlterNet.

February 9, 2006.

Two longtime voting rights activists have thrown their hats into state elections for secretary of state.

snip

John Bonifaz is a voting rights attorney and founder of the National Voting Rights Institute, which he founded in 1994 in Boston. Bonifaz has also worked for public funding of elections He was a leader in the push for Ohio's recount effort starting on No. 3, 2004. Bonifaz, with his father, also works at a private law firm that handles international environmental and human rights cases.

Mark Ritchie has been involved in Minnesota politics for the past 20 years. He is a founder of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and has served as its director since 1986. During the 2004 elections he helped create and lead the November 2nd campaign, a coalition of over 1,000 organizations and activist groups that worked to register five million new voters and turn out 10 million on Election Day.

snip

Ritchie: In the case of the secretary of state of Minnesota, Mary Kiffmeyer, in recent years there have been so many different aspects of her administration -- attempts to keep Native Americans from being able to vote, manipulating the election process -- which were in direct contradiction of the oath of office she swore to uphold. And Kiffmeyer was taking Minnesota backward in its leadership in this country on election issues, including her public opposition to our existing Election Day registration system. Election Day registration is a central reason for why Minnesota leads the nation by four percentage points in voter turnout, and she's on record and quite vocal about trying to get it repealed.

So, out of those experiences, I decided that somebody needed to run against her. After going to Camp Wellstone in January 2005 and discussing it with my wife, we decided that I was the person to take on this challenge.

snip

http://www.alternet.org/story/31946

[Wilms]

12. Somewhere in Canada: Cast your ballot on-line (oh, great!)

Cast your ballot on-line

Feb 8, 2006

Mike Lacey - More from this author

When the election rolls around Nov. 13, the City will offer a number of new, computer- related tools in the hopes of boosting voter participation while cutting costs.

Councillors approved advance-poll Internet voting Monday night, despite the concerns raised by one candidate in the November election.

Joel Parkes, who is running in Town Ward, said he was worried about the security of on-line voting. As well, he questioned whether it would really improve voter participation.

"I don't think it's worth the risk," he said.

snip

http://www.mykawartha.com/ka/news/peterborough/story/3307176p-3829126c.html

[Wilms]

13. G.W. Bush Conspired with Others to Steal the 2000 and 2004 Elections

G.W. Bush Conspired with Others to Steal the 2000 and 2004 Elections

Top 10 'Conspiracy Theories' about George W. Bush, Part 2

by Maureen Farrell

(scroll down to #4)

snip

"(The Bush Family's) sense of how to win elections comes out of a CIA manual, not out of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution."
-- Former GOP strategist Kevin Phillips, BuzzFlash, Jan. 7. 2004

While some believe a coup began on Sept. 11, others will tell you it began with the 2000 election. Even though George Bush's first cousin declared him the winner and his brother Jeb assured him he'd won Florida, many Americans remained unconvinced.

First there was the surreal sight of the Bush family on national TV, as staged and phony as Susan Smith's tearful plea to return her "kidnapped" children. Then came the well-groomed thugs, sent on Enron and Halliburton planes to stop the Florida recount. But it wasn't just James Baker's ploys or the Supreme Court's ruling that signaled something was amiss -- it was the attitude of ordinary citizens who were more concerned about their "team" winning than about democracy itself.

snip

http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/06/02/far06002.html


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x412299

[Wilms]

14. MI: Concerns raised about (Diebold) voting machines (customer support)

Concerns raised about voting machines

The lack of training on the Diebold voting machines has raised the ire of the Coahoma County Board of Supervisors.

Circuit Clerk Charles Oakes told the board Monday that the office of Secretary of State Eric Clark and Diebold have not kept their promises.

By: DAVID OWENS, Staff Writer

February 08, 2006

snip

"I'm really upset and accused Diebold of lying," he said. "They promised they would send someone before January. They haven't sent one person to Coahoma County to train and we're in February now.

"The Secretary of State is wondering where he's running next and won't even return my calls," Oakes said, noting the old machines were outlawed for use.

District 4 Supervisor Johnny Newson said he was worried about lawsuits the county would receive if people couldn't vote.

"We are nearing an election and haven't had anyone to train or educate the community," he said. "People want to vote, but they are being denied because the machines have put them at a disadvantage.

snip

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16082716&BRD=2038&PAG=461&dept_id=230617&rfi=6

[Wilms]

16. CO: Vote flap could cost county - Ballot machines lose certification

Vote flap could cost county
Ballot machines lose certification

By Kate Martin
The Daily Reporter-Herald

2/8/2006

A potential software conflict could cost nine Colorado counties, including Larimer, millions of taxpayer dollars to replace elections equipment.

Larimer County Clerk and Recorder Scott Doyle said Larimer County might have to replace all of its Diebold optical scan ballot-counting equipment if the software won’t work with federally mandated touch screens.

Doyle said the county received an $850,000 grant from the state to buy touch screen equipment, but he never anticipated replacing optical scanners. He thought the county could continue using the optical scan equipment, he said.

The Colorado Secretary of State’s office has also not certified any elections equipment for use in this fall’s elections, complicating matters.

snip

http://www.lovelandfyi.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=3920

[Wilms]

17. CO: Voting system raises concerns

I hadn't realized that CO certification of Diebold equipment was on hold since CA SoS McPherson sent Diebold to the ITA.
Just how many states are in a holding pattern as a result? :evilgrin:

Voting system raises concerns

By KEVIN DUGGAN

He's also worried that whatever system is approved by the state may not interface with the county's current vote-counting system, which scans votes on paper ballots.

The state and Larimer County could end up in violation of federal law and face sanctions from the Department of Justice, Doyle said.

Larimer County has used the AccuVote optical-scan system manufactured by Diebold Election Systems for about 10 years, Doyle said. The county spent about $800,000 on the system.

snip

State testing of Diebold's system is on hold until its software can be reviewed by an independent testing authority, she said. The federal review process does not affect existing AccuVote systems, she said.

snip

http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060208/NEWS01/602080324/1002

[Wilms]

18. MO: Locals decry voting fraud bill

Locals decry voting fraud bill

By Buzz Ball / Daily News Editor

February 7, 2006

A Missouri Senate bill requiring government-issued photo identification before being allowed to vote has not been met with a lot of enthusiasm from Newton County Clerk Kay Baum.

The bill, introduced by Sen. Delbert Scott of Lowry City, is meant to cut down on potential voter fraud. However, Baum is quick to point out that voter fraud is not a problem in Newton County, but sees it as a problem in heavily-populated areas such as St. Louis and Kansas City.

“Back in 2000 when we had that nation-wide problem, we looked into our voting records and did not find any problems at all,” said Baum. “To the best of my knowledge, we have never had voter fraud problems here.”

snip

http://www.neoshodailynews.com/articles/2006/02/07/news/02voterbill.txt

[Wilms]

19. PA: Voting machine arguments continue

Voting machine arguments continue

By David Hunt
TRIBUNE-REVIEW

Wednesday, February 8, 2006

HARRISBURG -- Old-fashioned ballot boxes are a last resort for Westmoreland County polling places in the primary election, even at the risk of miscounted votes and a $1 million funding sacrifice.

Election Director Paula T. Pedicone said she can't rule out using ballot boxes if the county doesn't start moving forward with a federally mandated plan to switch 45-year-old levered voting machines with electronic versions.

She told Commonwealth Court Judge Dan Pellegrini on Tuesday that election workers need to begin training on the new machines within two to three weeks to ensure that polling places will be ready by the May 16 primary.

In January, a grassroots organization joined by state Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, sued Westmoreland County to block the purchase. Until the lawsuit is settled, county officials say they are wary of signing a contract for the machines.

snip

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/westmoreland/s_421771.html

[Wilms]

20. AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project Launch (Hmmmm)

AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project Launch

February 08, 2006

On Wednesday, February 8, 2006, Senator Barack Obama delivered a keynote address to inaugurate the AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project. Norman Ornstein, Resident Scholar at AEI, and Thomas Mann, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, then moderated a discussion of the past and future of election reform among experts in election law, technology, and administration. See below for panelist information and the conference agenda. A complete video and transcript of the event will be posted shortly.

Transcript

* Keynote Address:Sen. Barack Obama

Video

* Introduction:Strobe Talbott
* Keynote Address:Sen. Barack Obama

Event Agenda:

Introduction:
Strobe Talbott, President, The Brookings Institution

Keynote Address:
The Honorable Barack Obama, United States Senator, Illinois

Panel One: HAVA – How Is It Working?

Moderator:
Norman Ornstein, Resident Scholar, AEI

Panelists:
Paul DeGregorio, Chair, Election Assistance Commission
Doug Chapin, Director, electionline.org
Honorable Deborah Markowitz, Vermont Secretary of State

Panel Two: Election Reform – Looking Ahead

Moderator:
Thomas Mann, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution

Panelists:
Michael Alvarez, Professor and Director of the Cal Tech-MIT Voting Technology Project
Richard Hasen, the William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Robert Pastor, Executive Director, Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform
Paul Vinovich, U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration

snip

http://www.electionreformproject.org/Topic/1/Events/ba601b93-91f6-4f15-86ed-9038893462ed/r1/Detail.aspx


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x412294

[Wilms]

24. Senator Obama on Section 5 Renewal

Election Law

Senator Obama on Section 5 Renewal

by Rick Hasen

February 9, 2006

Yesterday I participated in the kickoff event for the new AEI-Brookings Election Reform Project. I think this promises to be a very important program to bring together academics, advocates and policymakers who are interested in a serious look at election reform.

To me, the highlight of the event was the give and take among participants. (When the video link is available, I'll post it.) For example, voting rights attorney David Becker questioned AU's Bob Pastor about the use of the Carter-Baker report as cover for enacting certain voter i.d. programs in various states. I pushed Vermont's Secretary of State (and new president of NASS) Deborah Markowitz on NASS's unfortunate resolution last year calling on the US Election Assistance Commission to be disbanded. But the most interesting exchange of all came in Sen. Obama's response to Bruce Cain's questions about section 5 renewal and whether Congress should reverse the Bossier Parish cases. Here is an excerpt from the uncorrected transcript of the Senator's remarks (my emphasis):

snip

SENATOR OBAMA: And I think that part of the problem that we have right now is that the machinery that we've got identifies certain pockets of the country in which they've got to check off with a three-judge panel or the Justice Department, but it's not supple enough or quick enough to target situations, such as in Ohio, where I do think that there were some egregious practices taking place. The Justice Department did not feel it had a mandate or was required to enforce some of these provisions.

I guess another way of saying it is, the biggest problem I see with the Voting Rights Act is a lack of intentional effort on the part of the Justice Department to enforce those provisions that are there.

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/004902.html

[Wilms]

21. AZ: Whether there was vote tampering is not the most vital question

Feds Probe District 20

Whether there was vote tampering is not the most vital question for U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton to answer

By John Dougherty

2006-02-09

snip

Charlton's investigation needs to answer four fundamental questions:

• Did someone tamper with the ballots between the primary where Anton Orlich defeated John McComish by four votes and the recount where McComish downed Orlich by 13? Along the way, 489 votes that weren't counted during the primary appeared and were scattered among all five candidates running for two House seats. There was opportunity for tampering during the two weeks between the primary and recount because of excessive, improper and unsecured handling of the ballots under the direction of Maricopa County Elections Director Karen Osborne.

• Did Maricopa County and state elections officials illegally conduct elections when they knew, or should have known, that the county's voting machines were failing to accurately tabulate ballots? This by far is the most important element of the investigation, because there is substantial evidence that Purcell and Secretary of State Jan Brewer have known since 2002 that the optical scanning machines used in the county are prone to serious tabulation errors -- especially with early ballots that now account for half of the votes cast in elections.

• Was it proper for the elections department to let Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio have inmates stuff ballots into envelopes that were then mailed to voters requesting early ballots? Several prisoners were questioned by the FBI shortly after the 2004 primary when county investigators discovered the inmates tampered with ballots before they were mailed to voters. Any rational citizen has to ask why Arpaio was anywhere near the ballots and early-voter addresses, when he was also a candidate in the 2004 Republican primary in which he faced the stiffest competition of his career.

• Did county elections officials commit perjury before Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Eddward Ballinger during a September 2004 hearing when they told the judge they did not know how to reach an employee of the company that manufactured the county's optical scanners? The Election Systems & Software employee, Tina Polich, had received a subpoena to appear in court but failed to show. Investigators later discovered that an assistant Maricopa County attorney worked with an ES&S attorney to keep Polich from testifying.

snip

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/2006-02-09/news/dougherty_print.html


LBN Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2096486


-on edit-

Quote of the Week

"I am here and certified and nothing can be done about that, short of impeachment."

State Rep. John McComish of Ahwatukee Foothills, responding to a federal investigation of the disputed recount of ballots that led to McComish's victory in 2004.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/tempe/articles/0209evinsider0209Z10.html

[Wilms]

22. Bill would ban 3rd-party campaigns for Congress

Bill would ban 3rd-party campaigns for Congress

St. Louis Oracle

Sunday, February 05, 2006

Eight Democratic congressmen have filed a bill that combines a laudable goal – public funding of congressional campaigns – with a vicious attack on freedom of speech. The bill would effectively eliminate virtually all congressional campaigns by independent and third-party candidates.

The bill, HR 4694, would provide public financing for both Democrats and Republicans in most districts. But Ballot Access News reports that candidates not qualifying for funding would not only receive no government funds, but would also be barred from spending any privately raised money. No government money and no private money means that a non-qualifying candidate would be prohibited from spending any money at all, not one red cent. Not even a business card with the candidate’s name and office sought would be legal under the bill!

Requirements for qualifying for funding would be relatively easy for the major parties but almost impossible for independent and third-party candidates. The bill would provide public funding for nominees of parties that had averaged 25% of the vote for U.S. House in that district over the last two elections. Independent candidates who had averaged 25% would also get full public funding, but unlike party candidates, only the specific individual who previously got those votes would qualify. All others would be required to submit petitions signed by 20% of the last vote cast for full funding, and 10% for partial funding. For example, in Missouri’s 2nd congressional district, a candidate with a party that won less than 25% of the vote in the last two elections would need nearly 70,000 signatures to qualify for the public funding that her/his Democratic and Republican opponents would get automatically, and only signatures from the 2nd District would count. Nearly 35,000 signatures would be required in order to allow the candidate to spend anything at all on the campaign.

In certain districts where a single party is dominant, the bill would eliminate campaigns by the district’s second party as well. Not surprisingly, Democrats (who propose this bill) hold Republican opponents to below 25% in more districts than Republicans do the same to Democrats. If the bill were law today, a Republican campaign in Lacy Clay’s 1st District would be illegal without a massive petition drive. In Roy Blunt’s 7th District, Democrats would be less than a percentage point away from the same fate.

snip

http://stloracle.blogspot.com/2006/02/bill-would-ban-3rd-party-campaigns-for.html


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x412350

[Wilms]

23. OH: Judge dismisses case over recount - Prohibition against suing states

Wednesday, February 8, 2006

ELECTION 2004

U.S. judge dismisses case over recount
Prohibition against suing states cited

BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU

COLUMBUS - More than a year after Ohio officially handed its 20 electoral votes and the national election to President Bush, a federal judge yesterday dismissed a lawsuit from candidates still waiting for their recount.

While U.S. District Court Judge James G. Carr in Toledo said Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell's actions "arguably" conflicted with federal law, the judge dismissed the suit on the grounds that the U.S. Constitution, with rare exception, prohibits suits against states in federal court.

The judge found that, since Mr. Blackwell's directive limiting the recount timeline affected just one election more than a year old, the suit didn't meet one of the exceptions to the immunity rule.

A federally authorized state law requires that any recount for which the required fee has been posted must begin between 11 and 15 days after the voting.

snip

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060208/NEWS02/602080464


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x412370

[Wilms]

25. NJ Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit Challenging Electronic Voting

NJ Appeals Court Reinstates Lawsuit Challenging Constitutionality of Electronic Voting Machines

February 09, 2006

Newark, NJ, February 9, 2006 � The New Jersey Appellate Division announced today its agreement with concerns raised by the Constitutional Litigation Clinic at Rutgers School of Law-Newark that all electronic voting machines used in New Jersey may violate New Jersey�s Constitution and election laws.

In its decision, the Appellate Division reinstated a lawsuit filed by the clinic in 2004 that challenges the ability of New Jersey's electronic voting machines to count votes accurately, in compliance with voting rights laws. The Court reinstated the lawsuit even though, as a result of judicial and legislative efforts led by the clinic, all voting machines in the state must be equipped with a voter verified paper ballot component by 2008. The Court was concerned with protecting the hundreds of millions of votes that would be cast on voting machines between now and 2008. The Court also expressed its concern that the Attorney General's office would use a loophole in the statute and issue waivers to the 2008 voter verified paper ballot requirement further jeopardizing the franchise.

The lawsuit is the first in the nation to successfully challenge electronic voting machines. Professor Penny Venetis, associate director of the clinic and lead counsel on the case, commented, This shows that our courts take very seriously their role in protecting our most fundamental of all rights - the right to vote. Despite clear evidence that New Jersey's voting machines are insecure, the other branches of government failed to take appropriate action. That is why the Court stepped in, Venetis added.

The same voting machines used by almost all of New Jersey's five million registered voters have been found too insecure to use and have been de-commissioned by California, Ohio, Nevada, and New York City. New Jersey does not check the software of electronic voting machines to determine whether they have been tampered with or whether they are faulty.

The Rutgers clinic filed the suit on behalf of the Coalition for Peace Action, a citizens group based in Princeton that has been in the forefront of advocating for safe, transparent and auditable elections, as well as voter Stephanie Harris, a farmer whose vote was lost by a malfunctioning Mercer County electronic voting machine. Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include State Assemblyman Reed Gusciora, an early proponent of the voter verified paper ballot.

snip

http://www.newark.rutgers.edu/news/index.php?sId=viewArticle&ArticleID=4972&prevTitle=Top+Stories&prevURL=index.php


Dsicussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x412385

[Wilms]

26. NJ: Proposed law to outlaw paper ballots

ASSEMBLY, No. 2448
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
212th LEGISLATURE
INTRODUCED FEBRUARY 6, 2006

Sponsored by:
Assemblyman RICHARD A. MERKT (R)
District 25 (Morris)

SYNOPSIS
Requires use of electronic voting machines in elections; reimburses certain counties for funds spent on election equipment.

more/discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x412390

[Wilms]

28. .