Last week it was reported that a Diebold consultant in Ohio sought the advice of Franklin County's director of elections in making a $10,000 donation at the time bids were being taken for new voter registration software. Franklin County, where Columbus is located, is one of the jurisdictions listed in my Top 25 E-Voting Places To Watch list, which I compiled for the November 2004 election.
More revelations about other questionable donations made to support Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell, now a candidate for Governor, have come out this week. Today's editorial from the Akron Beacon Journal provides a good summary of what's known so far. Here it is below.
---------
A nasty scandal has been brewing at the Franklin County Board of Elections. It involves a stunningly blatant encounter between a paid consultant for the Green-based Diebold Corp., a supplier of electronic voting machines, and the director of the county elections board, Matt Damschroder.
The day bids were opened for voter-registration software, Diebold representative Pasquale ''Pat'' Gallina showed up in Damschroder's office. According to Damschroder, Gallina said he wanted to deliver a $10,000 check. To whom? The director, in violation of board policy and state law, told Gallina to make the check out to the Franklin County Republican Party. Damschroder will rightly lose 30 days' pay.
Gallina says he just wanted to make a donation to the party. Such an experienced operative goes to the elections board? Damschroder notes Diebold didn't get the contract. He adds that he should have booted Gallina. Diebold says it had nothing to do with the Gallina donation, citing a policy against political giving adopted after a boneheaded pledge by the company chairman to ''deliver'' Ohio for Bush in 2004.
The hugely complicating issue is that Diebold is the only vendor certified by J. Kenneth Blackwell, the secretary of state and Republican candidate for governor, to provide electronic voting machines in Ohio. A competitor, Election Systems & Software, has taken Blackwell to court.
When county prosecutors arrived, Damschroder related Gallina's description of a deal between himself and Norm Cummings, a Blackwell campaign consultant, in which Gallina wrote a $50,000 check to Blackwell's ''political interests.'' In exchange, Diebold would lower the price of its machines, if it got all the Ohio business. Blackwell, Cummings and Diebold all deny this. Gallina says he has long been a Republican supporter. A $10,000 contribution from another of Gallina's firms, to Blackwell's anti-tax group, was made after the Diebold certification. That smell of pay-to-play hangs very heavy in the air.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Judge orders Prop. 77 off the ballot
Today a superior court judge ruled that Proposition 77, an initiative supported by Governor Arnold Schwarzegegger, must be removed from the ballot because the signatures obtained to qualify it were collected illegally. Excerpts from John Wildurmuth's story are below.
--------
Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian said backers of Proposition 77 improperly gave one version of the measure to the state attorney general for preparation of the official title and summary and then used a slightly different version to collect signatures around the state.
The judge dismissed arguments by the initiative's backers, who said that despite the unintentional miscue, they still "substantially complied" with the initiative rules set out in the state Constitution.
Prop. 77's supporters have no one to blame but themselves for the problem, Ohanesian said, since the rules "are clear and well known and easily followed.
"There is no good reason to put the courts in the position of having to decide what is good enough for qualifying an initiative measure for the ballot when actual compliance is easily attainable,'' she said.
---
With deadlines for the Nov. 8 ballot looming, Prop. 77's backers plan to go to the state Court of Appeal in Sacramento today or Monday in an attempt to get the initiative reinstated.
"This is just one round,'' said Daniel Kolkey, attorney for the Prop. 77 forces. "The appellate courts will make the final decision.''
---
Schwarzenegger, appearing at a transportation-related event in suburban Sacramento Thursday morning before the ruling, characterized the court fight over the redistricting issue as just another attempt to block his reform plan for the state.
"Ever since we announced our reforms, there have been a lot of forces that believe in the status quo and want to hold things the way they are,'' he said. "They have tried to derail us.''
---
During more than two hours of courtroom argument Thursday, Kolkey complained that the proposed punishment for a clerical error did not fit the crime.
"That clerical error is being turned into a constitutional confrontation that would disenfranchise more than half a million people who signed the petitions,'' he said.
The differences between the two versions includes about a half dozen word changes, a heavily rewritten "findings and purposes" section and two sections where the deadlines were changed for putting together the panel of retired judges that would do the redistricting.
"The differences are immaterial," Kolkey said, and aren't enough take away the people's right to put an initiative on the ballot.
But Deputy Attorney General Vicki Whitney argued that the dispute "is not a matter of wordsmithing" but instead deals with the constitutional requirement that the attorney general receive an exact copy of any initiative before it can be approved for circulation.
"Should the court create an exception to this requirement, where does the line get drawn after today?" she asked.
The fact that the attorney general, by law, provides a copy of every initiative to the state Department of Finance, the legislative analyst and the Legislature and then posts it on his department's Web site for public view is an important reason that he should have the one official version, the judge said.
"The public and the government officials are entitled to rely on that official version,'' Ohanesian said.
--------
Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian said backers of Proposition 77 improperly gave one version of the measure to the state attorney general for preparation of the official title and summary and then used a slightly different version to collect signatures around the state.
The judge dismissed arguments by the initiative's backers, who said that despite the unintentional miscue, they still "substantially complied" with the initiative rules set out in the state Constitution.
Prop. 77's supporters have no one to blame but themselves for the problem, Ohanesian said, since the rules "are clear and well known and easily followed.
"There is no good reason to put the courts in the position of having to decide what is good enough for qualifying an initiative measure for the ballot when actual compliance is easily attainable,'' she said.
---
With deadlines for the Nov. 8 ballot looming, Prop. 77's backers plan to go to the state Court of Appeal in Sacramento today or Monday in an attempt to get the initiative reinstated.
"This is just one round,'' said Daniel Kolkey, attorney for the Prop. 77 forces. "The appellate courts will make the final decision.''
---
Schwarzenegger, appearing at a transportation-related event in suburban Sacramento Thursday morning before the ruling, characterized the court fight over the redistricting issue as just another attempt to block his reform plan for the state.
"Ever since we announced our reforms, there have been a lot of forces that believe in the status quo and want to hold things the way they are,'' he said. "They have tried to derail us.''
---
During more than two hours of courtroom argument Thursday, Kolkey complained that the proposed punishment for a clerical error did not fit the crime.
"That clerical error is being turned into a constitutional confrontation that would disenfranchise more than half a million people who signed the petitions,'' he said.
The differences between the two versions includes about a half dozen word changes, a heavily rewritten "findings and purposes" section and two sections where the deadlines were changed for putting together the panel of retired judges that would do the redistricting.
"The differences are immaterial," Kolkey said, and aren't enough take away the people's right to put an initiative on the ballot.
But Deputy Attorney General Vicki Whitney argued that the dispute "is not a matter of wordsmithing" but instead deals with the constitutional requirement that the attorney general receive an exact copy of any initiative before it can be approved for circulation.
"Should the court create an exception to this requirement, where does the line get drawn after today?" she asked.
The fact that the attorney general, by law, provides a copy of every initiative to the state Department of Finance, the legislative analyst and the Legislature and then posts it on his department's Web site for public view is an important reason that he should have the one official version, the judge said.
"The public and the government officials are entitled to rely on that official version,'' Ohanesian said.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Secretary of State's Voting Systems Panel meeting cancelled
The Secretary of State's office has posted an updated schedule for its Voting Systems Panel meetings. This week's meeting, which was scheduled to take place tomorrow, July 21, has been cancelled. The next scheduled meeting is Thursday, August 18. No agenda for this meeting has been posted yet, and there has been no news so far about whether Diebold's TSx machine has been certified.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
AP story: California Election Cycle Burns Out Voters
Michael R. Blood's Associated Press story on California's upcoming statewide special election made big news. News organizations all over the country picked up this story, focused on the question of whether there is such a thing as too much democracy?
Excerpt below:
-------------
Is there such a thing as too much democracy? California voters are in the midst of what might seem like a never-ending election cycle - soon to decide their fourth statewide election in two years - and some of them are starting to get burned out.
The cavalcade of candidates and ballot propositions - dating to the October 2003 election that put Arnold Schwarzenegger in office - has left many weary of the baggage that goes along with the elections: the high cost, the finger-pointing and the barrage of television commercials.
``I'm not looking forward to another special election,'' said 61-year-old retiree Mike Wells. ``I'm not too happy.''
Schwarzenegger's determination to get a tighter grip on the state budget and retool a Legislature known for its political extremes has led to the November special election. Eight initiatives have qualified for the November ballot, and the number could grow even larger by Election Day.
After years of runaway spending and increasing public debt, the governor has argued his ``Year of Reform'' initiatives are critical to changing the way state government operates. His supporters are equally eager to push for the ballot measures this year, rather than waiting until the state's June 2006 primary.
``I have no patience for folks who say, 'I have voter-fatigue,''' Fresno Mayor Alan Autry, a fellow Republican, said after Schwarzenegger called the special election last month. ``The governor's trying to solve problems. I fully support him.''
The governor's proposals would give him a stronger hand in state spending, redraw congressional and legislative districts and raise the bar for teachers to obtain tenure.
Other measures would require minors seeking abortions to get parental approval, reregulate the state's energy market and lower prescription drug prices.
But that could be just the start. The ballot could become more crowded - and confusing - if Schwarzenegger and legislators reach compromises that could place other measures before voters in November.
If that were to happen, the governor would have to persuade voters to reject his initial offerings in favor of the compromises.
``Confusion about issues on the ballot is a considerable barrier for voters in the state,'' said Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation, an advocacy group. ``My fear is people who are burned out may choose to sit home.''
If recent polls are any indication, Schwarzenegger may face an uphill battle. A May survey by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that California voters view Schwarzenegger's special election an unnecessary imposition.
``People scratch their heads and say, 'Why are we doing this?''' said Democratic consultant Kam Kuwata.
Californians have long prized their system of direct democracy, in which any group that collects enough signatures can place a proposal on the ballot. At least 86 initiatives were proposed this year - a record - although most never qualify for the ballot.
But at times it can seem like too much.
Schwarzenegger barely finished the oath of office in November 2003 before the presidential election kicked into gear. There was a spring 2004 primary, followed by the November election, in which voters had to wade through a list of candidates for president, U.S. Senate, the state Legislature and 16 ballot questions that touched on issues from slot machines to DNA databases.
Then there were local elections. Los Angeles residents, for example, had a primary and runoff election for mayor this year. That means a voter could have been to the polls five times since October 2003, or an average of about once every four months.
Beyond possible voter fatigue, the state's perpetual election cycle has led to resentment about the expense - the November special election is projected to cost taxpayers more than $50 million.
Excerpt below:
-------------
Is there such a thing as too much democracy? California voters are in the midst of what might seem like a never-ending election cycle - soon to decide their fourth statewide election in two years - and some of them are starting to get burned out.
The cavalcade of candidates and ballot propositions - dating to the October 2003 election that put Arnold Schwarzenegger in office - has left many weary of the baggage that goes along with the elections: the high cost, the finger-pointing and the barrage of television commercials.
``I'm not looking forward to another special election,'' said 61-year-old retiree Mike Wells. ``I'm not too happy.''
Schwarzenegger's determination to get a tighter grip on the state budget and retool a Legislature known for its political extremes has led to the November special election. Eight initiatives have qualified for the November ballot, and the number could grow even larger by Election Day.
After years of runaway spending and increasing public debt, the governor has argued his ``Year of Reform'' initiatives are critical to changing the way state government operates. His supporters are equally eager to push for the ballot measures this year, rather than waiting until the state's June 2006 primary.
``I have no patience for folks who say, 'I have voter-fatigue,''' Fresno Mayor Alan Autry, a fellow Republican, said after Schwarzenegger called the special election last month. ``The governor's trying to solve problems. I fully support him.''
The governor's proposals would give him a stronger hand in state spending, redraw congressional and legislative districts and raise the bar for teachers to obtain tenure.
Other measures would require minors seeking abortions to get parental approval, reregulate the state's energy market and lower prescription drug prices.
But that could be just the start. The ballot could become more crowded - and confusing - if Schwarzenegger and legislators reach compromises that could place other measures before voters in November.
If that were to happen, the governor would have to persuade voters to reject his initial offerings in favor of the compromises.
``Confusion about issues on the ballot is a considerable barrier for voters in the state,'' said Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation, an advocacy group. ``My fear is people who are burned out may choose to sit home.''
If recent polls are any indication, Schwarzenegger may face an uphill battle. A May survey by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that California voters view Schwarzenegger's special election an unnecessary imposition.
``People scratch their heads and say, 'Why are we doing this?''' said Democratic consultant Kam Kuwata.
Californians have long prized their system of direct democracy, in which any group that collects enough signatures can place a proposal on the ballot. At least 86 initiatives were proposed this year - a record - although most never qualify for the ballot.
But at times it can seem like too much.
Schwarzenegger barely finished the oath of office in November 2003 before the presidential election kicked into gear. There was a spring 2004 primary, followed by the November election, in which voters had to wade through a list of candidates for president, U.S. Senate, the state Legislature and 16 ballot questions that touched on issues from slot machines to DNA databases.
Then there were local elections. Los Angeles residents, for example, had a primary and runoff election for mayor this year. That means a voter could have been to the polls five times since October 2003, or an average of about once every four months.
Beyond possible voter fatigue, the state's perpetual election cycle has led to resentment about the expense - the November special election is projected to cost taxpayers more than $50 million.
Thursday, July 7, 2005
Redistricting measure could drop off ballot
Today's San Francisco Chronicle features an article by John Wildermuth regarding the potential for Proposition 77, Governor Schwarzenegger's redistricting measure, to be removed from the ballot. More information about this and the other seven measures slated to appear on the November 8 statewide ballot is available from CVF. Excerpts from the Chronicle article are below.
---------
A mistake involving an initiative that would change the way California draws its lines for politicians' districts could force the high- profile measure off November's special election ballot.
The problem arose when backers of the reapportionment initiative, now listed for the special election ballot as Proposition 77, turned in one version of the proposed measure to the state attorney general's office for review but circulated an earlier, slightly different version when collecting the signatures needed to qualify the initiative for the ballot.
Backers of the initiative noticed the problem last month and informed Secretary of State Bruce McPherson. Last week, McPherson turned the problem over to state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who is now reviewing the documents.
No one is sure what will happen to the initiative.
"This is uncharted territory,'' said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Lockyer. "No one in this office has any recollection of proponents for an initiative submitting one version (to the attorney general) for title and summary and then choosing to circulate a different version.''
If Lockyer decides the only official version of the initiative is the one turned into his office, then the 900,000 signatures collected for the measure could be ruled invalid.
Ted Costa, who led the effort for the redistricting initiative, expects the issue to go to court, although he said the differences between the two documents were little more than word changes for style purposes.
----
The initiative would take the power to draw the district lines for the state Senate, Assembly, House of Representatives and Board of Equalization away from the Legislature and give it to a panel of retired judges. Schwarzenegger said the change was needed to make elections more competitive and make officeholders more responsible to the voters.
---
Schwarzenegger is trying to keep the redistricting initiative on the ballot, with aides arguing that differences between the two versions of the measure are so minor that they have no real effect.
---------
A mistake involving an initiative that would change the way California draws its lines for politicians' districts could force the high- profile measure off November's special election ballot.
The problem arose when backers of the reapportionment initiative, now listed for the special election ballot as Proposition 77, turned in one version of the proposed measure to the state attorney general's office for review but circulated an earlier, slightly different version when collecting the signatures needed to qualify the initiative for the ballot.
Backers of the initiative noticed the problem last month and informed Secretary of State Bruce McPherson. Last week, McPherson turned the problem over to state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who is now reviewing the documents.
No one is sure what will happen to the initiative.
"This is uncharted territory,'' said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Lockyer. "No one in this office has any recollection of proponents for an initiative submitting one version (to the attorney general) for title and summary and then choosing to circulate a different version.''
If Lockyer decides the only official version of the initiative is the one turned into his office, then the 900,000 signatures collected for the measure could be ruled invalid.
Ted Costa, who led the effort for the redistricting initiative, expects the issue to go to court, although he said the differences between the two documents were little more than word changes for style purposes.
----
The initiative would take the power to draw the district lines for the state Senate, Assembly, House of Representatives and Board of Equalization away from the Legislature and give it to a panel of retired judges. Schwarzenegger said the change was needed to make elections more competitive and make officeholders more responsible to the voters.
---
Schwarzenegger is trying to keep the redistricting initiative on the ballot, with aides arguing that differences between the two versions of the measure are so minor that they have no real effect.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Alameda County supervisors approve registrar's plans to swap Diebold machines
Yesterday I attended a hearing of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, where they considered the county's plans to meet federal and state accessibility and security requirements for their voting system.
It was a disappointing day. I was hoping the supervisors would request a cost-benefit analysis of various options they were considering, such as replacing only some of their Diebold TS machines with newer TSx machines equipped with a voter-verified paper audit trail. Instead they voted 3-1, with one excused supervisor, to allow the registrar to begin negotiating a contract with Diebold to replace the county's entire inventory of 4,000 TS machines with TSx machines, which have not yet been certified by the state.
Throughout the meeting, there was confusion, misinformation and disinformation flying from all quarters. The registrar, county counsel, Diebold, and the activists who spoke all made various statements that were confusing or misleading. For example, the supervisors were considering a "blended" system, with paper ballots and one or two touchscreens per polling place. In her report to the supervisors, acting Registrar of Voters Elaine Ginnold stated that "the County Counsel advised that use of this option could raise an equal protection issue with disabled voters who would not have access to the same system as every other voter." When one of the supervisors asked the County Counsel staff to clarify, she responded first by saying this option would raise an equal protection problem, then went on to say it wouldn't. When people in the audience asked for clarification, the President of the Board, Keith Carson, asked her to clarify, and she stated that it would not raise an equal protectioon issue.
Shortly after that, another County Counsel staffer further clarified by saying that his office's statement in the staff report was incomplete and did not reflect his office's advice, only part of it. He went on to say that the advice given to the registrar was that the blended option did not violate the principles of equal protection if meaningful access is given across the board (i.e. if all voters can choose electronic or paper ballots).
Several Diebold staff people spoke on behalf of the company. Mark Radke of Diebold read an excerpt from the San Diego Grand Jury investigation into that county's March 2004 voting technology meltdown, when half of the counties polling places were inoperable at some time during the day due to equipment problems. Radke read the part of the report that said no problems were found with the TSx machine. Of course, he left out any description of problems with other Diebold equipment, such as the smart card encoder that was used in San Diego in that election which had multiple flaws that prevented people from voting.
There were many passionate activists who attended the meeting. Some made very eloquent statements, and some had experience as pollworkers. Several got up and demanded the supervisors hand-count paper ballots and opposed using any kind of computer technology in the voting process. Others demanded open source software. While it's understandable to me why these opinions are popular among many voting technology reform activists, it was not at all likely that the supervisors would have embraced either of these suggestions.
Supervisor Keith Carson, the board's president, asked many pointed questions of the registrar and of Diebold and to his credit was persistent in getting straight answers. At one point, Carson asked Radke to outline the most serious problem they've had with their voting machine. Radke went on to talk about all the testing their machines undergo. Carson tried to clarify his question, asking if the problems Alameda has experienced were human error, and weren't due to Diebold's technology? Radke replied that the architecture of their system is designed to protect against problems. Carson then asked, "So you are saying no?", to which Radke replied, "We have never lost a vote." Carson again asked, "So, no?", and finally, Radke said no.
The meeting started at 12:40 p.m., with no lunch break and went straight through the afternoon. As the day wore on, people in the room clearly were growing irritable and impatient. The public comment section of the meeting ended around 3:30 p.m., and Carson asked if anyone wanted to make a motion. No one on the board said anything. Then one of the supervisors, Gail Steele, suggested they wait until the TSx is certified by the state before moving forward. She got no response from other supervisors on that. The supervisors had a discussion on their various options, and it was clear that no one on the board wanted to make a motion. Finally, with some prompting from Carson, Steele moved option 2, which is to replace all the TS machines with TSx machines. Carson voted against it, but didn't say why until the other three supervisors present voted for it.
The supervisors also voted in support of having outside technical expertise on Alameda County's Voting Equipment Committee, and to conduct an independent poll of Alameda voters to measure their voting system preferences and level of voter confidence.
My sense by the end of the day was that the supervisors were reluctant to move forward with Diebold but were too confused, tired and weary from the hours of testimony and complicated information being passed on to them that they just wanted to be done with the issue. An audio archive of the meeting is available online. More details on yesterday's meeting are featured in Ian Hoffman's story in the Oakland Tribune, excerpted below.
--------
Despite stout public opposition, Alameda County will likely stick with Diebold electronic voting machines for the next congressional and presidential elections.
County supervisors gave the go-ahead Tuesday to negotiate a $5.4 million deal for Diebold's latest touch-screen machine, known as the TSx, equipped with a printer so voters can verify their electronic choices.
Supervisor Gail Steele said she can't operate a computer, but she's able to vote on Diebold's machines and argues "it's the way of the future."
---
E-voting critics lambasted Diebold and touch-screen voting for most of a four-hour hearing, saying fully computerized voting was fraught with secrecy, lax testing and a lack of voter confidence.
"We're basically talking about secret code, secret testing by the vendors and secret results," said Barbara Simons, who teaches computer science at Stanford University. She advocated paper ballots read by optical scanners at each polling place. Others wanted no machines at all, just human eyes and hands on the ballots.
"There is no need for electronic technology of any kind," said retired psychiatrist Don Goldmacher, co-chairman of the Voting Rights Coalition.
They reminded supervisors that nowhere has encountered more difficulty with Diebold and its voting systems than Alameda County, with Diebold products erroneously giving thousands of Democrat votes to a Socialist in one election and breaking down by the hundreds in another election.
---
"I really do trust our registrar of voters, who really does know a lot about this," Steele said, "And I really don't think there's one thing they would do if they thought it was illegal."
Steele led a majority in rejecting an equal or lower-cost option of using optically scanned paper ballots at the polling places, with one or two touch-screens for visually handicapped voters. Ginnold said
pollworkers have a tough enough time handling one voting system.
"It's more the confusion at the polling site. I'm just really concerned about that, and that could make us look bad," said Supervisor Nate Miley. "I'm just for having some experts take a look at this and doing a poll to see what the people say."
The sole dissent came from board President Keith Carson, who said no voting system is perfect or error-free.
"It's not an anti-touch-screen or anti-electronic voting with me," he said. "To me verifiability is the fundamental issue here, because whether you are physically challenged or using a different language there has to be a way at the end of the day to verify your vote."
Los Angeles County uses paper ballots, and Alameda County would do well to explore the same, he said. Instead, Carson suggested there is "entrapment" of the county by Diebold and the press of new laws and elections that make it hard to seek an alternative. "We've already been going down the slippery route with Diebold," he said.
It was a disappointing day. I was hoping the supervisors would request a cost-benefit analysis of various options they were considering, such as replacing only some of their Diebold TS machines with newer TSx machines equipped with a voter-verified paper audit trail. Instead they voted 3-1, with one excused supervisor, to allow the registrar to begin negotiating a contract with Diebold to replace the county's entire inventory of 4,000 TS machines with TSx machines, which have not yet been certified by the state.
Throughout the meeting, there was confusion, misinformation and disinformation flying from all quarters. The registrar, county counsel, Diebold, and the activists who spoke all made various statements that were confusing or misleading. For example, the supervisors were considering a "blended" system, with paper ballots and one or two touchscreens per polling place. In her report to the supervisors, acting Registrar of Voters Elaine Ginnold stated that "the County Counsel advised that use of this option could raise an equal protection issue with disabled voters who would not have access to the same system as every other voter." When one of the supervisors asked the County Counsel staff to clarify, she responded first by saying this option would raise an equal protection problem, then went on to say it wouldn't. When people in the audience asked for clarification, the President of the Board, Keith Carson, asked her to clarify, and she stated that it would not raise an equal protectioon issue.
Shortly after that, another County Counsel staffer further clarified by saying that his office's statement in the staff report was incomplete and did not reflect his office's advice, only part of it. He went on to say that the advice given to the registrar was that the blended option did not violate the principles of equal protection if meaningful access is given across the board (i.e. if all voters can choose electronic or paper ballots).
Several Diebold staff people spoke on behalf of the company. Mark Radke of Diebold read an excerpt from the San Diego Grand Jury investigation into that county's March 2004 voting technology meltdown, when half of the counties polling places were inoperable at some time during the day due to equipment problems. Radke read the part of the report that said no problems were found with the TSx machine. Of course, he left out any description of problems with other Diebold equipment, such as the smart card encoder that was used in San Diego in that election which had multiple flaws that prevented people from voting.
There were many passionate activists who attended the meeting. Some made very eloquent statements, and some had experience as pollworkers. Several got up and demanded the supervisors hand-count paper ballots and opposed using any kind of computer technology in the voting process. Others demanded open source software. While it's understandable to me why these opinions are popular among many voting technology reform activists, it was not at all likely that the supervisors would have embraced either of these suggestions.
Supervisor Keith Carson, the board's president, asked many pointed questions of the registrar and of Diebold and to his credit was persistent in getting straight answers. At one point, Carson asked Radke to outline the most serious problem they've had with their voting machine. Radke went on to talk about all the testing their machines undergo. Carson tried to clarify his question, asking if the problems Alameda has experienced were human error, and weren't due to Diebold's technology? Radke replied that the architecture of their system is designed to protect against problems. Carson then asked, "So you are saying no?", to which Radke replied, "We have never lost a vote." Carson again asked, "So, no?", and finally, Radke said no.
The meeting started at 12:40 p.m., with no lunch break and went straight through the afternoon. As the day wore on, people in the room clearly were growing irritable and impatient. The public comment section of the meeting ended around 3:30 p.m., and Carson asked if anyone wanted to make a motion. No one on the board said anything. Then one of the supervisors, Gail Steele, suggested they wait until the TSx is certified by the state before moving forward. She got no response from other supervisors on that. The supervisors had a discussion on their various options, and it was clear that no one on the board wanted to make a motion. Finally, with some prompting from Carson, Steele moved option 2, which is to replace all the TS machines with TSx machines. Carson voted against it, but didn't say why until the other three supervisors present voted for it.
The supervisors also voted in support of having outside technical expertise on Alameda County's Voting Equipment Committee, and to conduct an independent poll of Alameda voters to measure their voting system preferences and level of voter confidence.
My sense by the end of the day was that the supervisors were reluctant to move forward with Diebold but were too confused, tired and weary from the hours of testimony and complicated information being passed on to them that they just wanted to be done with the issue. An audio archive of the meeting is available online. More details on yesterday's meeting are featured in Ian Hoffman's story in the Oakland Tribune, excerpted below.
--------
Despite stout public opposition, Alameda County will likely stick with Diebold electronic voting machines for the next congressional and presidential elections.
County supervisors gave the go-ahead Tuesday to negotiate a $5.4 million deal for Diebold's latest touch-screen machine, known as the TSx, equipped with a printer so voters can verify their electronic choices.
Supervisor Gail Steele said she can't operate a computer, but she's able to vote on Diebold's machines and argues "it's the way of the future."
---
E-voting critics lambasted Diebold and touch-screen voting for most of a four-hour hearing, saying fully computerized voting was fraught with secrecy, lax testing and a lack of voter confidence.
"We're basically talking about secret code, secret testing by the vendors and secret results," said Barbara Simons, who teaches computer science at Stanford University. She advocated paper ballots read by optical scanners at each polling place. Others wanted no machines at all, just human eyes and hands on the ballots.
"There is no need for electronic technology of any kind," said retired psychiatrist Don Goldmacher, co-chairman of the Voting Rights Coalition.
They reminded supervisors that nowhere has encountered more difficulty with Diebold and its voting systems than Alameda County, with Diebold products erroneously giving thousands of Democrat votes to a Socialist in one election and breaking down by the hundreds in another election.
---
"I really do trust our registrar of voters, who really does know a lot about this," Steele said, "And I really don't think there's one thing they would do if they thought it was illegal."
Steele led a majority in rejecting an equal or lower-cost option of using optically scanned paper ballots at the polling places, with one or two touch-screens for visually handicapped voters. Ginnold said
pollworkers have a tough enough time handling one voting system.
"It's more the confusion at the polling site. I'm just really concerned about that, and that could make us look bad," said Supervisor Nate Miley. "I'm just for having some experts take a look at this and doing a poll to see what the people say."
The sole dissent came from board President Keith Carson, who said no voting system is perfect or error-free.
"It's not an anti-touch-screen or anti-electronic voting with me," he said. "To me verifiability is the fundamental issue here, because whether you are physically challenged or using a different language there has to be a way at the end of the day to verify your vote."
Los Angeles County uses paper ballots, and Alameda County would do well to explore the same, he said. Instead, Carson suggested there is "entrapment" of the county by Diebold and the press of new laws and elections that make it hard to seek an alternative. "We've already been going down the slippery route with Diebold," he said.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
CVF urges Alameda County supervisors to consider alternatives
Today I will be in Oakland for the Alameda County Board of Supervisors' hearing on their future voting system plans. I sent a letter to the Supervisors outlining a number of alternatives to consider before making their decision. Today's Oakland Tribune also features a story about today's hearing. Excerpts are below.
------
It's shopping time for elections officials, the moment to buy the means of democratic choice for the next congressional and presidential elections.
And some of the nation's largest jurisdictions — Los Angeles, Chicago and Greater Miami — are headed toward voting on paper.
"Could it be a sign of things to come? I'm not sure," said Sean Greene, research director for the nonpartisan reform group Electionline.org.
A real test of whether the nation's big urban places are moving away from electronic voting could come today in Alameda County as supervisors consider a voting-system upgrade.
The same county supervisors who three years ago spent $12 million on Diebold touch-screen voting machines and turned the county into a West Coast e-voting pioneer are weighing whether to invest more heavily or trade in for a paper-based optical scanning system.
That makes this morning's hearing a battlefield, with Texas-based Diebold Election Systems sending top executives to keep their foothold here and a coalition of e-voting critics arguing the company and its products are not trustworthy.
Alameda County Registrar of Voters Elaine Ginnold wants Diebold's latest touchscreen, called the AccuVote TSx, a lighter, fuller-functioning version of the county's existing AccuVote TS machines that also can print a paper record allowing voters to confirm their choices.
Full paper-based voting, Ginnold argues, is costly and cumbersome. Conducting a primary election in her county requires at least 33 different ballots for each precinct — one for each of eight parties, plus three cross-over parties, all in three languages. Paper ballots also can be imprecise, subject to bad or ambiguous markings by voters.
But if Ginnold thinks paper-based voting systems are a thing of the past, they also could be the future. Absentee balloting, or voting by mail, is growing fast in California, with more than half of voters in some jurisdictions mailing in their paper ballots.
------
It's shopping time for elections officials, the moment to buy the means of democratic choice for the next congressional and presidential elections.
And some of the nation's largest jurisdictions — Los Angeles, Chicago and Greater Miami — are headed toward voting on paper.
"Could it be a sign of things to come? I'm not sure," said Sean Greene, research director for the nonpartisan reform group Electionline.org.
A real test of whether the nation's big urban places are moving away from electronic voting could come today in Alameda County as supervisors consider a voting-system upgrade.
The same county supervisors who three years ago spent $12 million on Diebold touch-screen voting machines and turned the county into a West Coast e-voting pioneer are weighing whether to invest more heavily or trade in for a paper-based optical scanning system.
That makes this morning's hearing a battlefield, with Texas-based Diebold Election Systems sending top executives to keep their foothold here and a coalition of e-voting critics arguing the company and its products are not trustworthy.
Alameda County Registrar of Voters Elaine Ginnold wants Diebold's latest touchscreen, called the AccuVote TSx, a lighter, fuller-functioning version of the county's existing AccuVote TS machines that also can print a paper record allowing voters to confirm their choices.
Full paper-based voting, Ginnold argues, is costly and cumbersome. Conducting a primary election in her county requires at least 33 different ballots for each precinct — one for each of eight parties, plus three cross-over parties, all in three languages. Paper ballots also can be imprecise, subject to bad or ambiguous markings by voters.
But if Ginnold thinks paper-based voting systems are a thing of the past, they also could be the future. Absentee balloting, or voting by mail, is growing fast in California, with more than half of voters in some jurisdictions mailing in their paper ballots.
Monday, June 27, 2005
Alameda County to hold hearing tomorrow on its voting system plans
Tomorrow Alameda County supervisors will hold a public hearing to discuss their future plans for the county's voting system. The hearing is scheduled to take place at 10:30 a.m. during the supervisors' weekly meeting, held at the County Administration Building in the Supervisors' Chamber, at 1221 Oak Street, Fifth Floor, Room 512 in Oakland. The meeting agenda and live audio broadcast are available online.
Today's Contra Costa Times features an article by Guy Ashley providing background on tomorrow's meeting. Excerpts below:
--------
Four years after Alameda County purchased its touch-screen voting system for $12 million, the manufacturer wants the county to sink nearly $6 million more into upgrades to meet pending state requirements that voters be given paper receipts confirming their votes.
The proposal is sure to meet its share of criticism, given that the manufacturer is Texas-based Diebold Election Systems, whose equipment has had numerous problems since its installation.
The county's chief elections official supports the proposal, saying it would be far cheaper to upgrade than to buy a new system in time for the July 1, 2006 deadline for voter-verified paper trails for all electronic voting systems in California.
"If we went out to bid for a completely new voting system, we think it would cost us $14 million at a minimum," said Elaine Ginnold, the county's acting Registrar of Voters.
Ginnold will formally present the plan to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors at a public hearing Tuesday. Representatives from Diebold are expected to be present to answer questions, and to provide assurances that Alameda County's problems with their equipment are all in the past.
Diebold's plan calls for the county to exchange its AccuVote machines for a newer generation of AccuVote machines that are lighter and more versatile and that come with printers.
---
The new model of AccuVote machine has yet to be certified by the state, but Ginnold said she believes certification will occur in the coming few weeks. Any contract with Diebold to upgrade would be contingent on the state certifying the machines.
The county's existing Diebold system has complicated Election Day operations with various equipment glitches, including on one occasion assigning votes to the wrong candidate.
Diebold agreed last November to pay the state and Alameda County $2.6 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that it made false claims about the performance of its equipment when it sold it to the county for about $12 million in 2001.
The settlement came after local and state officials found that Diebold had installed uncertified software in Alameda County's touch-screens, that its system was vulnerable to computer hackers and that its central vote-tabulating program gave several thousand absentee votes to the wrong candidate during the October 2003 gubernatorial recall election.
Critics of the proposed Diebold upgrade say the string of past problems sends a resounding message that Alameda County should seek another alternative.
"These machines are very fallible," said Donald Goldmacher, a Berkeley physician who opposes the proposed upgrade as part of a group calling itself the Voting Rights Task Force.
"Their software is secret and proprietary, so we have no way of knowing if these machines are doing something they should not be doing when they're tabulating our votes."
Ginnold said she's aware of resistance in some sectors to Diebold's product, but that she believes the new machines are first-rate.
As for claims that the equipment will allow hackers to breach the integrity of Alameda County elections, she said she's not too concerned.
"If you say to a hacker, 'come into our vote-count room and here's the password to our server' of course there would be reason to be concerned," Ginnold said. "But we don't do that. We keep our vote-count room locked and alarmed and allow very few people to have access to the server."
Today's Contra Costa Times features an article by Guy Ashley providing background on tomorrow's meeting. Excerpts below:
--------
Four years after Alameda County purchased its touch-screen voting system for $12 million, the manufacturer wants the county to sink nearly $6 million more into upgrades to meet pending state requirements that voters be given paper receipts confirming their votes.
The proposal is sure to meet its share of criticism, given that the manufacturer is Texas-based Diebold Election Systems, whose equipment has had numerous problems since its installation.
The county's chief elections official supports the proposal, saying it would be far cheaper to upgrade than to buy a new system in time for the July 1, 2006 deadline for voter-verified paper trails for all electronic voting systems in California.
"If we went out to bid for a completely new voting system, we think it would cost us $14 million at a minimum," said Elaine Ginnold, the county's acting Registrar of Voters.
Ginnold will formally present the plan to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors at a public hearing Tuesday. Representatives from Diebold are expected to be present to answer questions, and to provide assurances that Alameda County's problems with their equipment are all in the past.
Diebold's plan calls for the county to exchange its AccuVote machines for a newer generation of AccuVote machines that are lighter and more versatile and that come with printers.
---
The new model of AccuVote machine has yet to be certified by the state, but Ginnold said she believes certification will occur in the coming few weeks. Any contract with Diebold to upgrade would be contingent on the state certifying the machines.
The county's existing Diebold system has complicated Election Day operations with various equipment glitches, including on one occasion assigning votes to the wrong candidate.
Diebold agreed last November to pay the state and Alameda County $2.6 million to settle a lawsuit alleging that it made false claims about the performance of its equipment when it sold it to the county for about $12 million in 2001.
The settlement came after local and state officials found that Diebold had installed uncertified software in Alameda County's touch-screens, that its system was vulnerable to computer hackers and that its central vote-tabulating program gave several thousand absentee votes to the wrong candidate during the October 2003 gubernatorial recall election.
Critics of the proposed Diebold upgrade say the string of past problems sends a resounding message that Alameda County should seek another alternative.
"These machines are very fallible," said Donald Goldmacher, a Berkeley physician who opposes the proposed upgrade as part of a group calling itself the Voting Rights Task Force.
"Their software is secret and proprietary, so we have no way of knowing if these machines are doing something they should not be doing when they're tabulating our votes."
Ginnold said she's aware of resistance in some sectors to Diebold's product, but that she believes the new machines are first-rate.
As for claims that the equipment will allow hackers to breach the integrity of Alameda County elections, she said she's not too concerned.
"If you say to a hacker, 'come into our vote-count room and here's the password to our server' of course there would be reason to be concerned," Ginnold said. "But we don't do that. We keep our vote-count room locked and alarmed and allow very few people to have access to the server."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
