Proposition 77 is back on the ballot due to a California Supreme Court decision this afternoon. Excerpts from the AP story are below.
----------
The California Supreme Court ruled Friday that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attempt to change the way legislative districts are drawn should be placed back on November's special election ballot.
The 4-2 decision overturns a state appellate court ruling that removed the measure because of a wording dispute.
In its ruling, the San Francisco-based court said it was unconvinced there were different meanings in the versions of the measure that were submitted to the attorney general for review and shown to registered voters for their signature to place it on the ballot.
"We conclude that it would not be appropriate to deny the electorate the opportunity to vote on Proposition 77 at the special election to be held on November 8, 2005, on the basis of such discrepancies," the majority wrote.
The decision is a victory for the Republican governor, who has made the redistricting initiative a centerpiece of his so-called "year of reform."
The initiative seeks to strip lawmakers' power to draw congressional and legislative boundaries in California and instead shift that responsibility to a panel of retired judges.
In a statement, Schwarzenegger said he was "pleased that the people of California will have an opportunity to vote on Proposition 77. ... Close to one million Californians signed petitions demanding redistricting reform, and today their voices have been heard."
Supporters submitted enough signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot, but Attorney General Bill Lockyer sued to remove it after its backers disclosed that they used a different version of the initiative during the certification process.
A Sacramento County Superior Court judge ruled in Lockyer's favor, striking the measure from the ballot July 21. Earlier this week, the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento rejected, in a 2-1 vote, an attempt by its backers to restore it.
Lockyer said he was disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision and said he had brought the challenge to defend the integrity of the initiative process.
"The outcome in this case presents a serious danger of opening up the initiative process to bait-and-switch tactics that deceive voters and erode their trust," he said in a statement.
Voting to overturn the Sacramento appeals court were Chief Justice Ronald M. George, Justice Marvin Baxter, Justice Ming Chen and Richard Aldrich, a Los Angeles appellate justice sitting on assignment.
Dissenting were justices Carlos Moreno and Joyce Kennard. Justice Kathryn Werdegar was unavailable and did not participate.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Thursday, August 11, 2005
State appeals court keeps redistricting measure off the ballot
Prop 77's proponents lost another court battle in their effort to keep their measure on the November statewide special election ballot. They intend to appeal to the California Supreme Court. Excerpts from Tuesday's AP story are below.
-----------------
A state appeals court on Tuesday refused to put Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's redistricting initiative back on November's special election ballot, saying supporters' use of two versions to qualify the measure was a "clear violation" of the constitution.
"The petitioners could easily have avoided or discovered and corrected the problem of different versions before the circulation of petitions...," the 3rd District Court of Appeal said in a 2-1 decision.
"Their failure to make a public disclosure (before the measure qualified for the ballot) has tainted ... the ballot pamphlet review process," said Justices Coleman Blease and M. Kathleen Butz.
Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland dissented, saying the measure's constitutional issues should be decided after the election.
Schwarzenegger said the ruling "ignored the will of nearly one million Californians who signed petitions demanding redistricting reform. Those voters knew they were signing petitions in support of reform and they deserve to get it," he said in a statement.
Daniel Kolkey, an attorney representing the measure's supporters, said the decision would be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
The measure is one of three Schwarzenegger placed on the Nov. 8 ballot and is a cornerstone of his "year of reform" package to remake state government. He also wants a state spending cap and teachers to work longer before being granted tenure.
The redistricting proposal would remove state lawmakers' power to draw boundaries for Congress, the Legislature and the state Board of Equalization, giving that responsibility instead to a panel of retired judges.
It ran into legal problems after supporters said they had inadvertently used two versions of the initiative during the qualification process. The version that was presented on voter petitions was different from the one submitted to the attorney general's office for preparation of a title and summary to go on the petitions and ballot.
The attorney general's office said that violated a clear-cut constitutional requirement that the same version of the initiative sent to the attorney general's office be used on petitions.
----
Tuesday's ruling said the text circulated by proponents differed in 17 places from that submitted to the attorney general's office.
"This ruling is important for California voters because it protects the integrity of the initiative process," Attorney General Bill Lockyer said in a statement. "I'm gratified the court found that when it comes to complying with constitutional mandates designed to safeguard the integrity of our elections, it's not good enough to be in the ballpark. You have to play by the rules."
-----------------
A state appeals court on Tuesday refused to put Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's redistricting initiative back on November's special election ballot, saying supporters' use of two versions to qualify the measure was a "clear violation" of the constitution.
"The petitioners could easily have avoided or discovered and corrected the problem of different versions before the circulation of petitions...," the 3rd District Court of Appeal said in a 2-1 decision.
"Their failure to make a public disclosure (before the measure qualified for the ballot) has tainted ... the ballot pamphlet review process," said Justices Coleman Blease and M. Kathleen Butz.
Presiding Justice Arthur Scotland dissented, saying the measure's constitutional issues should be decided after the election.
Schwarzenegger said the ruling "ignored the will of nearly one million Californians who signed petitions demanding redistricting reform. Those voters knew they were signing petitions in support of reform and they deserve to get it," he said in a statement.
Daniel Kolkey, an attorney representing the measure's supporters, said the decision would be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
The measure is one of three Schwarzenegger placed on the Nov. 8 ballot and is a cornerstone of his "year of reform" package to remake state government. He also wants a state spending cap and teachers to work longer before being granted tenure.
The redistricting proposal would remove state lawmakers' power to draw boundaries for Congress, the Legislature and the state Board of Equalization, giving that responsibility instead to a panel of retired judges.
It ran into legal problems after supporters said they had inadvertently used two versions of the initiative during the qualification process. The version that was presented on voter petitions was different from the one submitted to the attorney general's office for preparation of a title and summary to go on the petitions and ballot.
The attorney general's office said that violated a clear-cut constitutional requirement that the same version of the initiative sent to the attorney general's office be used on petitions.
----
Tuesday's ruling said the text circulated by proponents differed in 17 places from that submitted to the attorney general's office.
"This ruling is important for California voters because it protects the integrity of the initiative process," Attorney General Bill Lockyer said in a statement. "I'm gratified the court found that when it comes to complying with constitutional mandates designed to safeguard the integrity of our elections, it's not good enough to be in the ballpark. You have to play by the rules."
Monday, August 8, 2005
California tightens rules for e-voting vendors
Associated Press writer Jennifer Coleman's article last Friday provides more analysis and details about California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's announcement that he is tightening the rules on voting equipment vendors. Excerpts from the AP story are below.
-----------------
Makers of electronic voting machines will have to certify that their systems meet federal guidelines to ensure that voters don't get "stuck with a lemon" as technology and regulations evolve, the state's top election official said.
The new rule, announced this week by Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, will clarify for counties which systems are approved for use in the June 2006 primary election.
Manufacturers of e-voting machines will have to sign contracts stating that their equipment meets the requirements of the federal Help America Vote Act.
The guidelines for HAVA won't be finalized until October, McPherson said in an interview Friday. The new rule will protect counties financially if they buy a system touted as HAVA-compliant, only to learn it doesn't meet the final regulations.
"We don't know, and California voters don't know, what compliance will mean," he said. "Vendors say that as of this date they are compliant, but there may be changes to that."
The rule change follows McPherson's rejection last week of an application by North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold's e-voting machine. A test by the California secretary of state's office found the machine had an unacceptable rate of screen freezes and paper jams.
----
Counties are approaching a deadline under the federal law that requires every polling place have at least one handicapped-accessible voting machine — such as a touch screen machine — that allows disabled voters to cast a secret ballot.
In addition, California requires e-voting machines to have a paper trail.
It can be difficult for counties to stay up-to-date on the status of e-voting machines, said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.
"It's a very fast-paced, technical and detailed process," she said. "It's hard to keep up with what's going on and it's very easy for vendors to mislead officials on qualifications."
With the HAVA guidelines expected in October, that puts a lot of pressure on counties to chose a compliant system by the Jan. 1 deadline, McPherson said.
California counties will have $350 million in HAVA funds to spend on voting machines, he said. "It can be spent only one time and we want the voting machines compliant from the get-go."
The problem, said Alfie Charles, vice president of business development for Oakland-based Sequoia Voting Machines, is that there is no "pre-clearance for testing for HAVA compliance.
"There's a test for federal voting systems guidelines and a test for certification in California," Charles said, "but there's no test to determine HAVA compliance."
Sequoia makes a touch-screen system that meets the current HAVA standards, Charles said. But while counties can use the Sequoia Edge touch-screen machine in the November special election, California has not approved it for the June 2006 primary pending a change in the software.
Sequoia expects that change to be finished by the end of the year, Charles said.
Charles said the new rule could be a problem for e-voting vendors if the federal requirements change after systems were purchased.
"If there are interpretations of the accessibility requirements or different mandates from the federal government at a later date, it would be difficult for the state to require companies to bear that cost," he said.
-----------------
Makers of electronic voting machines will have to certify that their systems meet federal guidelines to ensure that voters don't get "stuck with a lemon" as technology and regulations evolve, the state's top election official said.
The new rule, announced this week by Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, will clarify for counties which systems are approved for use in the June 2006 primary election.
Manufacturers of e-voting machines will have to sign contracts stating that their equipment meets the requirements of the federal Help America Vote Act.
The guidelines for HAVA won't be finalized until October, McPherson said in an interview Friday. The new rule will protect counties financially if they buy a system touted as HAVA-compliant, only to learn it doesn't meet the final regulations.
"We don't know, and California voters don't know, what compliance will mean," he said. "Vendors say that as of this date they are compliant, but there may be changes to that."
The rule change follows McPherson's rejection last week of an application by North Canton, Ohio-based Diebold's e-voting machine. A test by the California secretary of state's office found the machine had an unacceptable rate of screen freezes and paper jams.
----
Counties are approaching a deadline under the federal law that requires every polling place have at least one handicapped-accessible voting machine — such as a touch screen machine — that allows disabled voters to cast a secret ballot.
In addition, California requires e-voting machines to have a paper trail.
It can be difficult for counties to stay up-to-date on the status of e-voting machines, said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.
"It's a very fast-paced, technical and detailed process," she said. "It's hard to keep up with what's going on and it's very easy for vendors to mislead officials on qualifications."
With the HAVA guidelines expected in October, that puts a lot of pressure on counties to chose a compliant system by the Jan. 1 deadline, McPherson said.
California counties will have $350 million in HAVA funds to spend on voting machines, he said. "It can be spent only one time and we want the voting machines compliant from the get-go."
The problem, said Alfie Charles, vice president of business development for Oakland-based Sequoia Voting Machines, is that there is no "pre-clearance for testing for HAVA compliance.
"There's a test for federal voting systems guidelines and a test for certification in California," Charles said, "but there's no test to determine HAVA compliance."
Sequoia makes a touch-screen system that meets the current HAVA standards, Charles said. But while counties can use the Sequoia Edge touch-screen machine in the November special election, California has not approved it for the June 2006 primary pending a change in the software.
Sequoia expects that change to be finished by the end of the year, Charles said.
Charles said the new rule could be a problem for e-voting vendors if the federal requirements change after systems were purchased.
"If there are interpretations of the accessibility requirements or different mandates from the federal government at a later date, it would be difficult for the state to require companies to bear that cost," he said.
Thursday, August 4, 2005
E-voting commentary by author Andrew Gumbel in today's LA Times
Today's Los Angeles Times features an op-ed by Andrew Gumbel, correspondent for the UK's Independent and author of the new book, Steal This Vote (a crisp and insightful piece of work which I am in the process of reading). His commentary is below.
---------
A firewall for democracy
Two California secretaries of state have refused to certify a touch-screen voting machine, and for good reason.
By Andrew Gumbel
Bruce McPherson, California's secretary of state, has just performed an invaluable service for the voters. Only a few months into the job, he had been under intense pressure to certify the latest electronic touch-screen voting machine manufactured by Diebold Election Systems, which is supposed to help California counties meet a federally mandated January deadline for the overhaul of their election equipment. But instead of rolling over, his office conducted exhaustive tests on the Diebold TSx, discovered that it had a 10% error rate — worse than the reviled punch-card machines used in Florida in 2000 — and sent the company back to the drawing board.
This is hugely important for two reasons.
First, because companies such as Diebold have been operating far too long without adequate public oversight, while charging taxpayers tens of millions of dollars for equipment that some of the country's best computer scientists have found is sloppily programmed, dangerously insecure and virtually unable to be audited for fraud or error.
The TSx, which is fitted with an independent paper trail to make recounts possible, was waved through the hazily regulated federal certification process and was deemed to have passed muster in Utah, Ohio and a handful of other states. None appear to have noticed the paper-jamming and screen-freeze problems picked up in the California tests.
McPherson's decision is also significant because the same line of Diebold machines has now been refused certification by California secretaries of state from both major parties. McPherson is a Republican, and his predecessor, Kevin Shelley, who cracked down on Diebold last year after the company admitted shortcomings that included the use of uncertified software, is a Democrat. That shows the vulnerabilities of the electoral process are not, at heart, a question of partisan politics. Rather, this is about the integrity of this nation's democratic infrastructure.
The county officials who have succumbed to the lure of paperless touch-screen machines need to be held accountable for their lavish spending on cutting-edge technology that, fears about hacking aside, clearly isn't built very well.
Extraordinarily, many election officials still claim that the touch-screen machines sold by Diebold, Sequoia and their competitors are miracle machines guaranteeing flawless elections. Maryland's Linda Lamone, president of the National Assn. of State Election Directors, told a public hearing in Pasadena last week that e-voting skeptics were scaremongers unduly influenced by "sensationalized newspaper articles."
Never mind that those skeptics include computer scientists from Stanford, Johns Hopkins and Rice universities and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Never mind that several high-profile studies — such as the Florida commission report on the 2000 election — have concluded that optically scanned paper ballots, not touch-screens, are the safest and most reliable technology available.
The federal government also needs to be held accountable for leaving the technology of voting in a regulatory vacuum, and creating an oversight body — the Election Assistance Commission — so weak and underfunded that it is only now scrambling to draft standards for technology that has, for the most part, already been developed and sold.
Congress has no control over the machine-certification process, and the Federal Election Commission, which has drawn up technical specifications in the past, is so far behind the curve that most electronic machinery now in use meets standards drawn up as far back as 1990, the Stone Age of computing.
This lamentable state of affairs is not irreversible. Two years ago, when Shelley mandated an independent paper trail for all Californian voting systems — an essential prerequisite for proper recounts — it created a chain reaction causing 17 states to follow suit. McPherson's rejection of Diebold's substandard machine may well have a similar effect nationwide.
The voters certainly deserve better. If there is no accountability in the conduct of elections, then no other aspect of American democracy is completely safe either.
---------
A firewall for democracy
Two California secretaries of state have refused to certify a touch-screen voting machine, and for good reason.
By Andrew Gumbel
Bruce McPherson, California's secretary of state, has just performed an invaluable service for the voters. Only a few months into the job, he had been under intense pressure to certify the latest electronic touch-screen voting machine manufactured by Diebold Election Systems, which is supposed to help California counties meet a federally mandated January deadline for the overhaul of their election equipment. But instead of rolling over, his office conducted exhaustive tests on the Diebold TSx, discovered that it had a 10% error rate — worse than the reviled punch-card machines used in Florida in 2000 — and sent the company back to the drawing board.
This is hugely important for two reasons.
First, because companies such as Diebold have been operating far too long without adequate public oversight, while charging taxpayers tens of millions of dollars for equipment that some of the country's best computer scientists have found is sloppily programmed, dangerously insecure and virtually unable to be audited for fraud or error.
The TSx, which is fitted with an independent paper trail to make recounts possible, was waved through the hazily regulated federal certification process and was deemed to have passed muster in Utah, Ohio and a handful of other states. None appear to have noticed the paper-jamming and screen-freeze problems picked up in the California tests.
McPherson's decision is also significant because the same line of Diebold machines has now been refused certification by California secretaries of state from both major parties. McPherson is a Republican, and his predecessor, Kevin Shelley, who cracked down on Diebold last year after the company admitted shortcomings that included the use of uncertified software, is a Democrat. That shows the vulnerabilities of the electoral process are not, at heart, a question of partisan politics. Rather, this is about the integrity of this nation's democratic infrastructure.
The county officials who have succumbed to the lure of paperless touch-screen machines need to be held accountable for their lavish spending on cutting-edge technology that, fears about hacking aside, clearly isn't built very well.
Extraordinarily, many election officials still claim that the touch-screen machines sold by Diebold, Sequoia and their competitors are miracle machines guaranteeing flawless elections. Maryland's Linda Lamone, president of the National Assn. of State Election Directors, told a public hearing in Pasadena last week that e-voting skeptics were scaremongers unduly influenced by "sensationalized newspaper articles."
Never mind that those skeptics include computer scientists from Stanford, Johns Hopkins and Rice universities and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Never mind that several high-profile studies — such as the Florida commission report on the 2000 election — have concluded that optically scanned paper ballots, not touch-screens, are the safest and most reliable technology available.
The federal government also needs to be held accountable for leaving the technology of voting in a regulatory vacuum, and creating an oversight body — the Election Assistance Commission — so weak and underfunded that it is only now scrambling to draft standards for technology that has, for the most part, already been developed and sold.
Congress has no control over the machine-certification process, and the Federal Election Commission, which has drawn up technical specifications in the past, is so far behind the curve that most electronic machinery now in use meets standards drawn up as far back as 1990, the Stone Age of computing.
This lamentable state of affairs is not irreversible. Two years ago, when Shelley mandated an independent paper trail for all Californian voting systems — an essential prerequisite for proper recounts — it created a chain reaction causing 17 states to follow suit. McPherson's rejection of Diebold's substandard machine may well have a similar effect nationwide.
The voters certainly deserve better. If there is no accountability in the conduct of elections, then no other aspect of American democracy is completely safe either.
Wednesday, August 3, 2005
Secretary of State announces new voting equipment vendors requirements
California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson issued a news release today announcing new requirements on makers of voting machines. According to the release, "effective immediately, all voting system vendors requesting certification from McPherson's office must be compliant with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA)" and all vendors will be required to "sign contracts acknowledging and agreeing to this legal condition". More details about the new requirements are featured in the release.
Report details on TSx testing show nearly 20 percent failure rate
Today's ANG newspapers feature an article by Ian Hoffman providing more details on California's recent testing of 96 Diebold TSx voting machines in Stockton. His article is featured below:
--------
Diebold's latest electronic voting machine, desired by dozens of counties nationwide, fared worse in the nation's first mass testing than previously disclosed, with almost 20 percent of the touch-screen machines crashing.
Those software failures are likely to send Diebold programmers back to work and perhaps force the firm into weeks of independent laboratory testing.
With 17 California counties — including Alameda, Marin and San Joaquin — as well as dozens of counties in Ohio, Utah and Mississippi considering purchase of the Diebold AccuVote TSx, the delay could put at risk tens of millions of dollars in sales and throw open the door to Diebold competitors.
In Alameda County, Diebold's first large customer onthe West Coast, local officials are looking at other manufacturers' products and mass-mailing county voters to promote the virtues of absentee voting — no need to come to the polling place and use an expensive voting machine.
"We're looking at all of our options," said Acting County Registrar of Voters Elaine Ginnold. "That means looking at every single voting system" that California might approve for voters.
For years, the county was considered Diebold territory. Other vendors, such as Sequoia Voting Systems of Oakland, figured a sales pitch was wasted time. But Keith Carson, president of the county Board of Supervisors, suspects those days "have to be more at an end than not."
"As far as the other supervisors," he said, "I can't believe they would continue down this dark path with Diebold when there are more problems with each testing."
California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson ordered the testing in the form of a massive mock election after paper jams plagued Diebold's TSx in earlier tests. The machine is mated to a printer so voters and elections officials can verify electronic votes.
Software problems occurred in those earlier tests, but state voting-systems analysts were more focused in the mock election on paper jams. Yet when Diebold representatives trucked in 96 brand-new TSx machines, and local elections officials voted on them July 20 in a San Joaquin County warehouse, nearly twice as many machines froze or crashed as had paper jams.
Last week, McPherson rejected use of the TSx, saying the machine's lack of reliability "isn't good enough for voters in California, and it isn't good enough for me."
On the strength of the paper jams alone, two-dozen critics of electronic voting rallied in front of the Alameda County administrative offices Tuesday and demanded that county supervisors withdraw from negotiations to buy the machines. Homemade signs accused the McKinney, Texas-based maker of voting machines of "stealing" elections and called on Alameda County to "dump Diebold."
"There have been serious problems for years now, and it's time for the board to take responsibility," said Judy Bertelsen, a Berkeley leader in an umbrella group, the Voting Rights Task Force.
In all, 19 machines had 21 screen freezes or system crashes, producing a blue screen and messages about an "illegal operation" or a "fatal exception error." A Diebold technician had to restart the machine for voting to resume. Ten machines had a total of 11 printer jams. Almost a third of all machines in the mock election had one problem or another.
Diebold officials say they plan to fix the problems and bring the machines back for a new mass test late this month.
Douglas Jones, a computer science professor at the University of Iowa and an expert on computerized voting systems, isn't surprised.
Diebold's touch-screen machines run software written by Microsoft, Diebold and at least three other companies that make parts such as printers, memory cards and the touch-sensitive screen itself.
--------
Diebold's latest electronic voting machine, desired by dozens of counties nationwide, fared worse in the nation's first mass testing than previously disclosed, with almost 20 percent of the touch-screen machines crashing.
Those software failures are likely to send Diebold programmers back to work and perhaps force the firm into weeks of independent laboratory testing.
With 17 California counties — including Alameda, Marin and San Joaquin — as well as dozens of counties in Ohio, Utah and Mississippi considering purchase of the Diebold AccuVote TSx, the delay could put at risk tens of millions of dollars in sales and throw open the door to Diebold competitors.
In Alameda County, Diebold's first large customer onthe West Coast, local officials are looking at other manufacturers' products and mass-mailing county voters to promote the virtues of absentee voting — no need to come to the polling place and use an expensive voting machine.
"We're looking at all of our options," said Acting County Registrar of Voters Elaine Ginnold. "That means looking at every single voting system" that California might approve for voters.
For years, the county was considered Diebold territory. Other vendors, such as Sequoia Voting Systems of Oakland, figured a sales pitch was wasted time. But Keith Carson, president of the county Board of Supervisors, suspects those days "have to be more at an end than not."
"As far as the other supervisors," he said, "I can't believe they would continue down this dark path with Diebold when there are more problems with each testing."
California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson ordered the testing in the form of a massive mock election after paper jams plagued Diebold's TSx in earlier tests. The machine is mated to a printer so voters and elections officials can verify electronic votes.
Software problems occurred in those earlier tests, but state voting-systems analysts were more focused in the mock election on paper jams. Yet when Diebold representatives trucked in 96 brand-new TSx machines, and local elections officials voted on them July 20 in a San Joaquin County warehouse, nearly twice as many machines froze or crashed as had paper jams.
Last week, McPherson rejected use of the TSx, saying the machine's lack of reliability "isn't good enough for voters in California, and it isn't good enough for me."
On the strength of the paper jams alone, two-dozen critics of electronic voting rallied in front of the Alameda County administrative offices Tuesday and demanded that county supervisors withdraw from negotiations to buy the machines. Homemade signs accused the McKinney, Texas-based maker of voting machines of "stealing" elections and called on Alameda County to "dump Diebold."
"There have been serious problems for years now, and it's time for the board to take responsibility," said Judy Bertelsen, a Berkeley leader in an umbrella group, the Voting Rights Task Force.
In all, 19 machines had 21 screen freezes or system crashes, producing a blue screen and messages about an "illegal operation" or a "fatal exception error." A Diebold technician had to restart the machine for voting to resume. Ten machines had a total of 11 printer jams. Almost a third of all machines in the mock election had one problem or another.
Diebold officials say they plan to fix the problems and bring the machines back for a new mass test late this month.
Douglas Jones, a computer science professor at the University of Iowa and an expert on computerized voting systems, isn't surprised.
Diebold's touch-screen machines run software written by Microsoft, Diebold and at least three other companies that make parts such as printers, memory cards and the touch-sensitive screen itself.
Department of Justice to Hold Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Symposium
This looks like an interesting conference, taking place in Washington, DC October 4 & 5.
Tuesday, August 2, 2005
Diebold TSx rejection and its impact on California counties
Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's decision last week to reject Diebold's TSx electronic voting system has prompted many to wonder what California counties plan to do for the November statewide special election and next year's statewide primary and general elections. The Voting Modernization Board recently published a report on all the counties' plans to modernize equipment in order to meet federal accessibility deadlines. As the VMB's report shows, many counties using Diebold's paper, optical scan voting system were planning to acquire one electronic voting machine per polling place to comply with the federal accessibility requirement. Other counties, such as Kern, San Diego and San Joaquin, have thousands of TSx machines sitting in warehouses that will remain unused for the time being.
KXTV in Sacramento reported that San Joaquin county has already paid $858,000 to Diebold for its TSx machine. San Joaquin's entire purchase price was $5.7 million, according to this story by Greg Kane in Saturday's Stockton Record. California's rejection of the TSx has had an impact in at least one other state. According to this story in the Salt Lake Tribune, some voting reform activists in Utah are insisting the state not move forward with its plans to spend $27 million on Diebold equipment.
Excerpts from the Stockton Record article are below.
-------------
San Joaquin County voters will cast votes on paper ballots in November's special election while more than 1,600 touchscreen voting machines remain packed away in a Stockton warehouse.
The decision came Thursday after state elections officials ruled the ATM-like machines -- which cost taxpayers $5.7 million when purchased in 2002 -- wouldn't be certified in time for the election. The touchscreen systems haven't been used since the March 2004 primary, when equipment problems in San Diego and Alameda counties led the state to outlaw their use.
California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson told Diebold Election Systems Inc. in a letter Wednesday that its TSx system had problems with paper jams and is vulnerable to freezing. He went on to deny the company's request to certify the machines but left open the option to reapply.
San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters Deborah Hench said Thursday the state's decision leaves the county with no choice but to use paper ballots. Planning for the election has to begin within a few weeks.
"They're not going to certify the TSx until Diebold comes back and corrects the problem," Hench said.
Diebold representatives didn't return calls to The Record on Friday.
San Joaquin County purchased 1,625 TSx systems at $3,200 a pop three years ago. San Joaquin County never had problems with the machines, Hench said.
------
State elections officials were in Stockton last week to test nearly 100 machines fitted with the modified printers, Hench said. About 10 percent of the systems experienced paper jams.
McPherson's letter also describes a "recurring problem" in which the machines freeze and need to be rebooted. Kim Alexander, president and founder of the Davis-based California Voter Foundation, said Thursday such a glitch might signal a larger problem with the equipment.
"They're going to have to do more than just tinker around with the printer to address the concerns that were brought by the secretary of state," Alexander said.
Voters using the TSx systems can cast ballots digitally by pressing their choice on an on-screen display. With paper ballots, voters fill ovals with either a No. 2 pencil or dark pen.
Diebold will pay back what the county spends on paper ballots, Hench said.
The electronic system makes the county's job of running the election far simpler, Hench said. Election officers require less training, and ballots are easier to track and count.
Critics of the touchscreen systems say they're vulnerable to hackers, software problems and losing votes. Alexander believes there are many security holes in the machines that must be addressed before they're allowed back into voting booths.
"I've felt for a long time that we rushed into electronic voting without fully taking into consideration the risks," Alexander said. "Those risks are now painfully apparent."
Hench thinks it's a matter of time before the state certifies the TSx machines. She believes the state and Diebold will find a way to get the machines ready for the June 2006 election.
"It's in all our best interest to get this worked out," Hench said. "We'll see it next year."
KXTV in Sacramento reported that San Joaquin county has already paid $858,000 to Diebold for its TSx machine. San Joaquin's entire purchase price was $5.7 million, according to this story by Greg Kane in Saturday's Stockton Record. California's rejection of the TSx has had an impact in at least one other state. According to this story in the Salt Lake Tribune, some voting reform activists in Utah are insisting the state not move forward with its plans to spend $27 million on Diebold equipment.
Excerpts from the Stockton Record article are below.
-------------
San Joaquin County voters will cast votes on paper ballots in November's special election while more than 1,600 touchscreen voting machines remain packed away in a Stockton warehouse.
The decision came Thursday after state elections officials ruled the ATM-like machines -- which cost taxpayers $5.7 million when purchased in 2002 -- wouldn't be certified in time for the election. The touchscreen systems haven't been used since the March 2004 primary, when equipment problems in San Diego and Alameda counties led the state to outlaw their use.
California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson told Diebold Election Systems Inc. in a letter Wednesday that its TSx system had problems with paper jams and is vulnerable to freezing. He went on to deny the company's request to certify the machines but left open the option to reapply.
San Joaquin County Registrar of Voters Deborah Hench said Thursday the state's decision leaves the county with no choice but to use paper ballots. Planning for the election has to begin within a few weeks.
"They're not going to certify the TSx until Diebold comes back and corrects the problem," Hench said.
Diebold representatives didn't return calls to The Record on Friday.
San Joaquin County purchased 1,625 TSx systems at $3,200 a pop three years ago. San Joaquin County never had problems with the machines, Hench said.
------
State elections officials were in Stockton last week to test nearly 100 machines fitted with the modified printers, Hench said. About 10 percent of the systems experienced paper jams.
McPherson's letter also describes a "recurring problem" in which the machines freeze and need to be rebooted. Kim Alexander, president and founder of the Davis-based California Voter Foundation, said Thursday such a glitch might signal a larger problem with the equipment.
"They're going to have to do more than just tinker around with the printer to address the concerns that were brought by the secretary of state," Alexander said.
Voters using the TSx systems can cast ballots digitally by pressing their choice on an on-screen display. With paper ballots, voters fill ovals with either a No. 2 pencil or dark pen.
Diebold will pay back what the county spends on paper ballots, Hench said.
The electronic system makes the county's job of running the election far simpler, Hench said. Election officers require less training, and ballots are easier to track and count.
Critics of the touchscreen systems say they're vulnerable to hackers, software problems and losing votes. Alexander believes there are many security holes in the machines that must be addressed before they're allowed back into voting booths.
"I've felt for a long time that we rushed into electronic voting without fully taking into consideration the risks," Alexander said. "Those risks are now painfully apparent."
Hench thinks it's a matter of time before the state certifies the TSx machines. She believes the state and Diebold will find a way to get the machines ready for the June 2006 election.
"It's in all our best interest to get this worked out," Hench said. "We'll see it next year."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
