Why is Mcpherson Certifying the TSx and Why Does Bowen Say He Can?

[Wilms]

Interpreted Code aside for the moment, Debra Bowen made an interesting comment in her response to McPherson's action.


emphasis mine

"The other thing that no one has mentioned is the fact that the Diebold machines don’t comply with the state’s paper trail law because they don’t provide blind or visually impaired voters with a ‘read-back’ of what the paper trail recorded, they only read back what the machine recorded electronically," noted Bowen. "That’s not what the law requires, yet the Secretary has decided to go ahead and approve these machines for use anyway.

snip

Under Elections Code Sections 19250 and 19251, all direct recording electronic (DRE) voting systems have to come with an accessible voter verified paper audit trail (AVVPAT). The AVVPAT must be “provided or conveyed to voters via both a visual and a nonvisual method, such as through an audio component.” The Diebold TSx doesn’t contain that feature, therefore making the AVVPAT that all DREs are required to have as of January 1, 2006, useless for blind or visually-impaired voters.

Here's the CA Elections Code Sections 19250 and 19251
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/code/code.html?sec=elec&codesection=19250-19253


And Diebold ain't the only vendor with VVPAT trouble according to this paper. :grr:
http://election-reform.us/tsx_legal_jb.html


Here's CA VVPAT standard fyi
pdf
http://ss.ca.gov/elections/ks_dre_papers/avvpat_standards_1_21_05.pdf


Well that's great news! No?


again, emphasis mine

If the Secretary wants to say he’s changing his mind and lowering the safeguards California voters are entitled to have to ensure their votes are accurately counted, that’s certainly his decision to make, but saying these Diebold machines comply with state law and with all federal regulations and requirements simply isn’t accurate."

What the hell does that mean? It's not his decision to break the law, is it? The standards he probably can fudge. But the law??

Somebody call LandShark, please.

Should I dial 911? :shrug:

[GuvWurld]

1. Odd, but I assume we must take Bowen's words at face value

Can the SoS actually change the law, in this case the state election code? It does seem that Bowen says it's true and though I find it surprising it also seems that she means to be taken seriously. Then again, I think she is also laying a sort of trap, along the lines of asking a man if he has stopped beating his wife yet. "If the Secretary wants to say he’s changing his mind and lowering the safeguards California voters are entitled to have to ensure their votes are accurately counted..." Of course McP would never say that, even as he blatantly does it. That part is good framing by Bowen. As for the "his decision to make" part, it must be codified so someone will have to track it down and tell us definitively whether the SoS may unilaterally change the code. I don't have time to do the research right now but it is a good question to have surface.

Nice thread Wilms :-)

[OnTheOtherHand]

2. no, the SoS cannot change the law, only interpret it

Not that I know anything about California election law in particular -- I am just talking general principles of government. The SoS gets to decide whether to certify, and then other actors get to decide whether to sue.

[Bill Bored]

3. "the information that is contained"

I don't see how ANY voting system on the market today can do a read back.

First, here's what the law says:

"(d) All direct recording electronic voting systems shall include a method by which a voter may electronically verify, through a nonvisual method, the information that is contained on the paper record copy of that voter's ballot."

"19251. For purposes of this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) "Accessible" means that the information provided on the paper record copy from the voter verified paper audit trail mechanism is provided or conveyed to voters via both a visual and a nonvisual method, such as through an audio component."

As long as the information contained on the AVVPAT is the same as what the machine tells the voter, via audio, etc., I'm not sure the law is broken.

Now this does raise some questions such as: suppose the printer runs out of ink, or the thermal paper is put in backwards so it won't record the information, or the thermal print head burns out and goes cold?

But even the Automark doesn't actually scan and read back the ballot, AFAIK. It marks the ballot, so it can "read back" the choices from memory. But I don't think it actually scans the ballot to see that the ink is in the right ovals, does it??? If it does, then it might be the only product that could be legal in CA.

I think Bowen may be grasping at straws here, which doesn't mean that McPherson should have certified Diebold of course.

On the other hand, if Bowen is simply saying that Diebold doesn't even have an accessible machine, that's another story, but the only problem I've heard of re that is that they don't have a sip and puff attachment.

So I'm confused...very confused.

[Wilms]

6. That ain't how I'm reading it.

Try my highlights, if you will.

"19251. For purposes of this article, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) "Accessible" means that the information provided on the paper record copy from the voter verified paper audit trail mechanism is provided or conveyed to voters via both a visual and a non-visual method, such as through an audio component."

The reason for that is what you alluded to when you wrote...

"As long as the information contained on the AVVPAT is the same as what the machine tells the voter, via audio, etc., I'm not sure the law is broken."

We have no assurance the information contained on the AVVPAT is the same as what the machine recorded.

That's the whole reason for VVPAT AND Auditing. :shrug:


Now, with AutoMark. I don't assume the audio function reads back from the paper, either. However, is it possible that a ballot reader employed as part of system including AutoMark, would have audio read-back capability and thus satisfy the law?


Finally, it may not really matter what AutoMark does or doesn't do.

The law is about VVPAT, not ballot markers.

More to the point, the way I read it, you could employ VOTE-Pad and not be in violation of this law. Do you agree?

[Bill Bored]

7. I buy your highlights.

I think the word mechanism is the key and this would imply that there has to be a way for e.g., a blind person, to verify what's on the paper. This does of course make sense since it's supposed to be the ballot of record in any audit or recount, I HOPE.

So, now, having said that, what technology will do it?

The law could be a clever way to get rid of DREs, but would this only apply to Accessible DREs (1 per polling place), or could it apply to all of them?

I could see VotePads or Automarks alongside DREs, and ironically, under this law, the DREs would be used by able-bodied voters. So has CA certified Automark? I know there's already a VotePad county.

I think this Bowen may be on to something. Who wrote this law anyway? This seems like something NY would come up with. You may finally have a bit of a HAVA resistance going on out there, dude. About frickin' time, I might add!

Is it time to drop a dime on the DoJ?

[Wilms]

8. Again, the law seems to target DRE VVPAT

So if, by law, it's supposed to be accesible, that would seem the argument to make.

AutoMark got CA cert. this summer.

Here's the certification status of various machines in CA. There's a lot more than Diebold at issue.
(.pdf)
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/vendor_status_spreadsheet.pdf

[Wilms]

9. Just found this gem in the SoS letter.

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/cond_cert.pdf

Of the Diebold TSx...

"If being used to meet the accessibility provisions of federal or state law, or if for
any reason only one such unit is being used at the precinct, once one vote is cast
on a TSX unit, the poll workers shall ensure that at least two more ballots are cast
on the machine, even if not by a voter needing its accessibility components, in
order to protect the privacy of the voter."

So now we're coercing votors into using the "accessible" machines in order to bring the machines into compliance? Not that I want to complain too much with the one per precinct schema.

I wonder if other states do this.

[EFerrari]

4. We really do need Land Shark to tell us how to respond when

the Thuggery bends and breaks the law at whim.

What do you think about the referendum solution? It's a blunt tool but we've seen that fine tools just get crushed.

Yes, dial "911". :(

[Bill Bored]

5. After many edits of my previous post,

I think I'll stick with it and edit this one to say so!

But boy, you Californians should read your laws more often! :)

[banana republican]

10. Extreme rendering anyone????