CA: Bowen Cites Illegalities of Diebold Certification & Calls for Reversal

[nicknameless]

BOWEN CALLS ON SECRETARY OF STATE TO REVERSE HIS DECiSION
TO RE-CERTIFY DIEBOLD VOTING MACHINES FOR USE IN CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO – California State Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), the chairwoman of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee, today released a letter she sent to Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, calling on him to reverse his February 17th decision to re-certify Diebold’s electronic voting machines for use in California.

“The certification doesn’t comply with state law and it breaks the commitment the Secretary made to Californians in December to wait for a federal review and testing process to be completed before deciding whether to allow Diebold’s equipment to be used in California,” said Bowen. “Californians shouldn’t be required to vote on machines that the Secretary’s own internal review team found to be riddled with bugs and susceptible to tampering. For the Secretary to get that kind of a report, then turn around and re-certify the Diebold machines for use in California only serves to undermine the already low level of confidence many people have in the integrity of our elections.”

A copy of the letter is attached.



###

February 22, 2006


The Honorable Bruce McPherson
Secretary of State
1500 11th Street
Sacramento, CA 95814


Dear Secretary McPherson:

I strongly urge you to reverse your February 17th decision to re-certify Diebold’s voting machines for use in California. Your decision contradicts your earlier commitment not to review Diebold’s re-certification request until it had been approved by the federal Independent Testing Authorities (ITA) and your commitment not to certify any system that doesn’t comply with all standards established by the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Furthermore, your decision violates state law. While your decision may be good for Diebold and its shareholders, it is not in the best interests of California’s voters or our democracy.


Federal ITA and HAVA Issues

On December 20, 2005, you announced that you would not consider reviewing the Diebold systems until the ITA had acted. Specifically, you stated, “During a thorough review of the application for the Diebold system currently pending certification, we have determined that there is sufficient cause for additional federal evaluation. I have consistently stated that I will not certify any system for use in California unless it meets the most stringent voting system requirements.” Attached to your statement was a letter from the chief of your Elections Division to Diebold, written presumably at your direction, stating, “We require this additional review before proceeding with further consideration of your application for certification in California. Once we have received a report from the federal ITA adequately analyzing this source code, in addition to the technical and operational specifications relating to the memory card and interpreter, we will expeditiously proceed with our comprehensive review of your application.” The ITA has yet to conclude its review of the Diebold memory cards, yet you have re-certified the machines in direct contradiction of your December 20, 2005, commitment to the voters.

On August 3, 2005, you announced that “ll systems certified by the Secretary of State’s Office shall comply with the standards and requirements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) , including all requirements, standards and regulations promulgated pursuant to authority derived from HAVA, as well as complying with all other applicable requirements and standards explicit in federal and state laws, and any requirements, standards and regulations deriving authority from federal and state laws.” As you know, the 2002 Voting System Standards adopted by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) were adopted by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) as the first set of guidelines adopted under HAVA. Those guidelines recommend that voting machines not be certified for use if they contain interpreted code. The Diebold machines that you re-certified on February 17 contain interpreted code, which is in direct violation of your August 3, 2005, commitment to follow the higher standards set forth by the EAC and the FEC.


Violations of California Law

Your decision to re-certify Diebold’s machines violates California Elections Code Section 19250(a), which precludes the Secretary of State from approving the use of any direct recording electronic (DRE) voting system unless it has received federal qualification. You sent the memory cards back to the Independent Testing Authorities (ITA) in December 2005 because, as you noted in the letter from the chief of your Elections Division to Diebold, “. . . this component was not subjected to federal source code review and evaluation by the Independent Testing Authorities (ITA) who examined your system for federal qualification. It is the Secretary of State’s position that the source code for the AccuBasic code on these cards, as well as for the AccuBasic interpreter that interprets this code, should have been federally reviewed.” If it was your position on December 20, 2005, that certain components of the system had never been federally reviewed, how could you lawfully certify a system on February 17 under Elections Code Section 19250(a) that contains these uncertified components?

Your decision to re-certify Diebold’s machines also violates Elections Code Section 19251(a). As you know, as of January 1, 2006, all 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 comply with this provision of the law. Instead, it provides an audio read-back of how the voter’s ballot was recorded electronically, not how it was captured on the AVVPAT, which makes the AVVPAT on the Diebold DRE useless for blind or visually-impaired voters. Given that fact, it appears Diebold’s voting systems don’t comply with Elections Code Section 19251(a) and therefore can’t lawfully be certified for use in California.


Required Public Process Not Completed

Finally, there is a significant legal issue that needs to be addressed regarding the lack of public notice and absence of a public hearing that should have preceded your decision to re-certify the Diebold machines. Although the report is dated February 14, 2006, the fact is this report wasn’t released publicly until after you issued your decision to re-certify the Diebold machines on February 17. The argument that the November 21, 2005, hearing you held on Diebold obviates the need for a new hearing under Elections Code Section 19204 doesn’t suffice, because your decision to re-certify Diebold’s machines was based solely on a report that wasn’t available, completed, or even envisioned at the time of the November 21, 2005, hearing. To hold a public hearing without providing the public with the information on which you based your decision to re-certify the Diebold machines only serves to undermine the public hearing requirement of the law.

For all of these reasons, I call on you to restore transparency to the voting machine certification process, which begins by reversing your decision to re-certify Diebold’s machines for use in California.


Sincerely,

Debra Bowen, Chairwoman
Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee

[datadiva]

1. I vote absentee but I can't wait to vote

for Bowen! :applause:

[BillORightsMan]

12. absentee security?

Diebold stripped out the key protection that would detect GEMS tampering. Your 12 year old sister can own the absentee votes without leaving a trace, short of counting the absentee ballots.

When a candidate in Marin County noticed that he won on polling place votes but lost hugely on absentees, he asked to do a recount. They told him it would be $13,000 just to sort the ballots, which they jumbled together.

You vote absentee, anyone with access to the central tabulator for 60 seconds, even years before the election, can own your vote.

And by the way, even aside from GEMS and the stripped-out Diebold absentee security, guess who wrote the mail-sorting software AND the signature authentication software for Diebold ?

That's right, Jeffrey Dean, whose testimony on this matter in a 2004 trial is posted on Who's Counting?. Read and weep, he was convicted on 23 counts of computer fraud and his software counts your absentee votes.

Now, don't you think it's time to place a few phone calls to get Senate Committee subpoenas issued?

details at Who's Counting?
:patriot:

[movonne]

2. This is a good thing...

[AndyTiedye]

3. This is Their Response to Their Loss Last November

Last November's referenda were a test of their vote-stealing systems.
They failed miserably in California.
They need more Diebold Republican Electing Machinez!
Then they can make it like Ohio, where they stole 1/3 of the entire vote!

[nicknameless]

4. Exactly. The rethugs don't have a prayer without their vote-stealing

machines. McPherson will be up for this first election for the SoS office. The only way he'd ever win is by cheating.

[Peace Patriot]

5. Go, Debra! Gauntlet thrown!!!

The powers of darkness have a lot of loopholes to play with, from what I can see in this letter. The EAC (under the Bush junta's thumb) and its secret industry 'testing' process could issue another bullshit report tomorrow and solve McPherson's problem. In fact, he may know what no one else knows--that it's already coming--thus allowing him to claim wholly bullshitting vindication. It seems to me what we have here are "guidelines" and "promises." The strongest legal hook (to my non-expert mind) is public process, but even if we win the public process point--or any of these points--what does that get us? A delay--and one that tends to legitimize this bullshit "process" of Diebold shill McPherson and these totally bullshit machines with their "TRADE SECRET," proprietary programming (all of them, not just Diebold).

...unless Bowen (and the rest of us) were to luck out with a judge who really believes in democracy and opens up the case to a thorough review of the utter non-transparency of our election system. But Bowen has to make the case for that, has to provide grounds. I'm not saying she won't. I just don't see the fundamentals in this letter. It's a good letter, dealing with the points at hand--and subjecting McPherson and Diebold to close scrutiny of their every deceptive, bullshit move.

I guess I'm just feeling onery. Diebold wouldn't be acceptable EVEN IF it gets passed through by secret industry "testers" under Bush junta control. It wouldn't be acceptable EVEN IF McPherson had held a public hearing.

Onery--and damn worried that the Bush junta's utter contempt for the law (on pre-emptive war, on torture, on POWs, on spying, on "outing" entire CIA counter-proliferation networks, on the security of U.S. ports, and so much more) is coming to California, and this is Battleground #1 for the destruction of our state's laws as well.

Granted, granted...any administrative, legislative or legal process that threatens Diebold with exposure--especially of its source code--and/or that brings about disclosure (which Kevin Shelley was about to achieve, by the way--when they put a hole in his head and dumped him in the Sacramento River (ahem...drove him from office on bogus election charges)) could possibly drive these Bushite corporations out of the business. Clearly, none of them wants their source code revealed--for good reason. What they are producing is election theft machinery. And I think this was an issue in North Carolina (wasn't it? Diebold withdrew from the state because of a new requirement to put their source code into an escrow account? --correct me if I'm wrong).

I applaud Bowen. And she has my full support. And SHE'S taking the risks here, and doing the peoples' business. What a miracle to have someone like her caring about our right to vote!

I'm just agitated tonight by the MASSIVE UNLAWFULNESS of our government--and by George Schultz's (and other's) donations to McPherson's campaign, with McPherson and Schwarzenegger clearly counting on having Diebold in place for November. It means a lot to them. That's WHY they're up to all these shenanigans.

McPherson, a Republican, was APPOINTED by Schwarzenegger for this purpose, for getting Diebold certified--after the junta got rid of Shelley, an elected Democrat, who had sued Diebold and decertified the worst of their election theft machines prior to the 2004 election. McPherson now has to face the voters. Bowen is running against him. See: www.debrabowen.com.

Debra Bowen :yourock:

[Bill Bored]

6. Forget Diebold! Here's the important thing:

Sen. Bowen wrote:

"Your decision to re-certify Diebold’s machines also violates Elections Code Section 19251(a). As you know, as of January 1, 2006, all 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 comply with this provision of the law. Instead, it provides an audio read-back of how the voter’s ballot was recorded electronically, not how it was captured on the AVVPAT, which makes the AVVPAT on the Diebold DRE useless for blind or visually-impaired voters. Given that fact, it appears Diebold’s voting systems don’t comply with Elections Code Section 19251(a) and therefore can’t lawfully be certified for use in California."

If you left coasters really want to get rid of your DREs, this is how you should do it! Someone took the trouble to write a law just so you could do this. Now stop whining about Diebold and USE IT!!!

[nicknameless]

7. Why go after them based on ONE broken law when there are numerous?

McPherson needs to be hammered for the overwhelming illegality of this certification.

We're supposed to be consoled because he made it "conditional"?
Diebold will simply not comply with the laws, even if required to (as has been their past M.O.).
The election will be held with non-compliant machines (as has happened in the past) and NOTHING will be done about it.
The election (fraud) results will stand (as has happened in the past).

This is just a shit-load of same-old, same-old.

[mom cat]

8. Debra Bowen deserves a medal for her work on this one!

[Wilms]

9. K&R n/t

[Einsteinia]

10. Signed & I spoke with some insiders today

I asked what would it reallly take for McPherson to reverse, and I was told that we need to get another huge smoking gun in the mainstream media. What do you think of that?

[nicknameless]

11. Another huge smoking gun? What does that mean to them?

1) McPherson is violating State and Federal laws by certifying these machines.
2) His hand-selected panel discovered 16 major bugs which could allow election theft, etc.
3) Worse, they also found a "publicly-compromised" cryptographic key.
4) Diebold's use of illegal, interpreted code.
5) Harri Hursti's successful hack test on the Diebold optical scan system.
6) The TSx's failure to meet the requirements for visually-impaired voters.

Why aren't those enough?

If they told you "another" huge smoking gun was required, that means they viewed some past media story that way.
Which story? The Hursti hack?

After all of the MSM's feigned indignation over Kevin Shelley's non-story, where are they when it comes to blatant violation of numerous laws?

We saw what happened when Arnold picked on teachers, nurses, police and firefighters. They went after him and won.
Is something like that what it's going to take to kill election theft?