Election Integrity News - November 14, 2005 This Week's Quote: "Representatives from Sequoia Voting Systems, the electronic voting system company, will verify the results later this week. The final tally will be made official Monday." Salem County New Jersey Board of Elections ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
| In this issue ... Commentary National Stories News From Around the States New Mexico: Election Officials Try to Block Machine Inspections Ohio: Alarming Comparisons of Pre-Election Polls and Official Results for Reform Ohio Now Initiatives Pennsylvania: State Senator Williams Denounces Voter ID Bill Wisconsin: Assembly Passes AB 627 by 91-4 Vote Pennsylvania: Nov. 19 - Will My Vote Still Be Counted? Virginia: Nov. 21 - Legislative Hearing on Voter Verified Paper Trails California: Nov. 28-29 Voting System Testing Summit Previous Issues
|
|
|
VoteTrustUSA Depends On Your
Contributions! Thanks to all of you who have contributed to VoteTrustUSA. Your donations make it possible for us to further the cause of Election Integrity nationally and around the states. VoteTrustUSA is 100% citizen-supported and your donations are tax deductible. We are making a difference! If you missed our recent email, please click here to learn more. To make a donation, please click here. Thank you for your support! |
A Report from Precinct 204300
by Warren Stewart, Director of Legislative Issues and Policy, VoteTrustUSA
|
Elections take place in polling places and it is in polling places that an individual informed citizen, concerned about the accuracy and security of the election process, can make a difference. I served proudly as poll inspector for Precinct 204300 in Berkeley (Alameda County), California on November 8th. Alameda was one of nine counties in the state that used paperless DREs one more time before the requirement for a voter verified paper audit trail goes into effect next year. But my precinct was not entirely paperless. |
What made this polling place different from most was that every voter, after signing the roster, was given the option (by me) of voting on an optical scan paper ballot or on a Diebold touch screen machine. This option, available to every California voter in counties that use DREs, came as a surprise to most and the range of responses was informative. Many made their decisions immediately (almost a third chose paper), but many asked questions. Most importantly, every voter was in the precinct was presented with the issue of voting technology.
While I was careful to stay factual and not express an opinion one way or another about the two voting options, if a voter asked questions I did provide answers. On a couple occasions voters wanted to know about the status of the Diebold TS and I explained that indeed this was the machine (with the VVPAT printer) that had been de-certified by the Secretary of State of California - for 2006. I also explained to several voters that the paper ballots would be scanned by a machine initially but would be available for later visual examination.
As a poll worker I was in a position to act as a safeguard against at least some of the random disenfranchisement that takes place in every election. The most important lesson I took away from my experience was the importance of having election integrity activists and citizens informed about the issues surrounding voting technology serving as official poll workers. So often it seems we are unable as individuals to have an impact on the election process. By serving as a poll worker you can make a difference. For more information about pollworking contact your local election official and visit www.pollworker.us.
|
Today We Have Two Choices: Fix the System,
or Don't Bother to Vote |
You are a good citizen. You find out all you can about the important political issues. You research candidates. You put signs in your yard and stickers on your car to encourage others to see your side. You contribute time and money to political campaigns. You brave weather and long lines to be sure that you cast your ballot on election day. You have performed an important, probably the most important, civic duty. All is well with the world. Or, is it? The reality is, with the advent of electronic voting machines without a voter verified paper trail, you donât know today how your vote was counted in the last election. Before you cry foul, or insist that this canât be true, or worse yet Ð that this is no more than the raving of a sore looser liberal, I encourage you to investigate the reports from two organizations, the General Accountability Office (GAO), and The National Election Data Archive (NEDA), a nonprofit organization of statisticians and mathematicians devoted to the accuracy of U.S. vote counts. Read the Entire Article |
 |
|
Connecticut: Election Integrity Organization
Critical of State's Voting Machine RFP |
| An active exchange has taken place over the past months
between Susan Bysiewicz, Secretary of State of Connecticut and TrueVoteCT,
an election integrity organization in the state. The background is summarized
in a recent oped in the Hartford Couran and a series of letters can be viewed
at the TrueVoteCT website. The organization
recently assembled a report critical of the states RFP for voting technology,
the conclusions from which are summarized here. The full report can be downloaded
here
[PDF].
TrueVoteCT, along with many other computer scientists, local election officials, voting activists and concerned citizens across the country have serious reservations about DRE voting machines. DREs are an immature technology that are expensive to purchase, very costly to run elections with, very complex and are prone to glitches and errors. Purchasing DREs at this time is comparable to buying the first PCs to hit the market. Consumers who purchased these PCs paid top dollar for inferior technology and replaced them often as the technology improved and prices came down. This is what the state will be facing if they move forward with the current plan to purchase DREs. |
 |
A TrueVoteCT representative personally spoke to one of the election officials in Miami-Dade County, the County that has recommended scrapping $24.5 million of DRE voting machines. The Miami-Dade election official said ãany state or municipality that purchases DREs today would have to be crazyä. Read the Entire Article
|
New Mexico: Election Officials Try to Block Machine Inspections by Lowell Finley and Holly Jacobson, VoterAction |
| In the past week, two New Mexico election officials
refused to allow the voter plaintiffs in the case of Patricia Rosas Lopategui
v. Rebecca Vigil-Giron, et al. to conduct meaningful inspections of their
electronic voting machines. This despite clear indications that there
were serious problems in last year’s presidential election with
these same machines, which do not produce a voter-verifiable and auditable
paper record. |
 |
|
Ohio: Alarming Comparisons of Pre-Election
Polls and Official Results for Reform Ohio Now Initiatives |
In their article ãHas American Democracy Died an Electronic Death in Ohio 2005's Referenda Defeats?ä, Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman point out alarming statistical anomalies in last Tuesdayâs official results on five statewide ballot initiatives. One of the initiatives was a proposition for state programs to create jobs and promote high tech industry, while the other four were election reform measures referred to collectively as Reform Ohio Now (RON). Fitrakis and Wasserman note that while the historically reliable pre-election poll conducted by the Columbus Dispatch was typically accurate in predicting the official results for the first ballot initiative it was radically off in predicting easy victories for three of the four RON initiatives. The paper's last poll published on Sunday, November 6, the Dispatch showed Issue One passing with 53% of the vote and the initiatived passed in the official tallies with 54% of the vote. For the Reform Ohio Now initiatives it was another matter. The Dispatch poll showed Issue Two, which called for no excuse absentee voting, passing by a vote of 59% to 33%, with about 8% undecided, an even broader margin than that predicted for Issue One. But on November 8, the official vote count, Issue Two went down to defeat by the astonishing margin of 63.5% against, with just 36.5% in favor. Similarly Issue Three, which dealt with campaign finance reform, was predicted by the Dispatch to win in a landslide, with 61% in favor and just 25% opposed. But on Tuesday, Issue Three lost in perhaps the most astonishing reversal in Ohio history, claiming just 33% of the vote, with 67% opposed. The other two reform initiatives on the ballots suffered similar reversals. Significantly, almost half the stateâs counties were using touch screen voting machines for the first time. Read the Entire Article |
|
|
Pennsylvania: State Senator Williams Denounces
Voter ID Bill by Warren Stewart, Director of Legislative Issues and Policy, VoteTrustUSA |
In a press release issued last week, State Sen. Anthony H. Williams (D-8th) denounced a proposed bill that circulated in the state government committee, saying its many flaws would impair the Democratic process for many, despite good intentions for a tighter, more accurate election process. As written, House Bill 1318 would adversely impact seniors, those with limited polling place options in their neighborhoods and ex-offenders, Williams said. He fought to have the bill returned to committee for further work. "We want to make sure elections are held without question of accuracy," said Williams, Democratic chair of the committee. "We don't want to be Florida, God forbid. But we want to go about it in a way that's responsible, well run and organized. HB 1318 aims to further reform the state election code and bring about uniformity for the process, along the way, it would shortchange significant numbers of citizens." |
 |
|
Wisconsin: Assembly Passes AB 627 by
91-4 Vote |
On November 10, the Wisconsin Assembly passed AB 627 by a vote of 91-4, sending it to the Senate for consideration. The bill calls for a voter verified paper record of every vote and a prohibition of undisclosed voting system source code. Both major provisions of the bill have been modified somewhat from the bill that was introduced in August by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-78th) and Rep. Stephen Freese (R-51st).
 |
"Wisconsin cannot go down the path of states like Florida
and Ohio in having elections that the public simply doesn't trust,"
Pocan commented. "By requiring a paper record on every electronic voting
machine, we will ensure that not only does your vote matter in Wisconsin,
but it also counts."
Two of the modifications concern the verification language. The regrettable choice of words originally, which required the voter verified ballot to be "visually verifiable" has been amended to "verifiable either by visual or nonvisual means, as appropriate". Additionally, a requirement to use the voter verified paper ballot in recounts, rather than conducting recounts by merely running another machine count, was added. The current text of the bill can be downloaded here [PDF]. The legislators supporting this bill recognize the urgency of meeting the January 1, 2006 deadlines for federal funding through the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). “Since this is one-time federal dollars, it is very important that the Elections Board does the right thing and directs that the new equipment have paper ballots. While our bill would require this, there is a chance that the Board could spend millions and millions on equipment that the legislature would ban if the bill passes. We have heard multiple times from our constituents about the need for a paper trail on these new machines and it would be unfortunate if the Board ignores their requests,” said Pocan. For more information about AB 627 click here. Read the Entire Article |
|
|
Pennsylvania: Nov. 19 Will
My Vote Still Be Counted? |
|
Virginia: Nov. 21 - Next Hearing of VA
Legislature Joint Subcommittee Studying Voting Equipment, |
|
California: Nov. 28-29 - Voting System
Testing Summit |
Secretary of State Bruce McPherson is hosting an invitation-only Voting Systems Testing Summit to bring together experts from state and federal elections administration to discuss testing as it applies to state certification processes for voting equipment. Several panels of nationally recognized experts will share their expertise as we attempt to develop a best practices model that all states can use in their examination of voting equipment. Download the tentative agenda or visit the event's website for additional information.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Election Integrity News Editor: Warren
Stewart
VoteTrustUSA Statement of Principles
Please forward Election Integrity News to your friends!
