The state election clerks' association (the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials) recently sent a letter to the Governor urging him to veto SB 370/Bowen, which would mandate the use of the voter verified paper audit trail to publicly audit computerized election results. In their letter of opposition, the clerks state that they do not believe "a separate, independent verification of DRE accuracy is necessary....". Their letter goes on to suggest that we should instead find "new methods of validating the accuracy of the equipment used to cast or tabulate votes."
The clerks assert in their letter that the voter verified paper trail is a "form of verification that is useful only when the voter is present" and then go on to say that "Using the AVVPAT to perform a 1% manual tally or full recount is neither practical nor accurarate.....Printing the internal audit trail for these purposes does nothing to verify the accuracy of the electronically captured vote, because the possibility exists that the internal audit trail and AVVPAT could be programmed to print different results."
So, to sum up: The clerks have now stated on the record that they do not believe independent verification of DRE accuracy is necessary, but that they now do believe voting equipment could be hacked or could malfunction. Their reasoning is inconsistent and more than a little frightening. Their opposition to public verification on computerized election results is appalling. The clerks also oppose SB 370 because of various administrative concerns, all of which are surmountable. In short, the clerks' letter is all about explaining how using the voter verified paper trails to perform the one percent manual count would make their jobs difficult. What the clerks' association fails to realize is that elections are not conducted for the convenience of election officials; they are conducted for the purpose of transferring power between the people and the government. To suggest that electronic voting equipment is a reliable tool to use for elections, admit that this very same equipment is subject to fraud or error and then insist that public verification of results produced by such equipment is not necessary demonstrates a failure on the part of the clerks' association to comprehend the true nature and purpose of the electoral process.
Friday, September 9, 2005
Thursday, September 8, 2005
UK drops plans for e-voting
British media are reporting this week that the United Kingdom has dropped its plans to pursue electronic voting. In a Register story by Tim Richardson, it was reported that the "news was slipped out in a written answer during the summer recess prompting the Tories to describe plans for "widespread electronic voting and an 'e-enabled general election' by next year" as "a shambles"." It is welcome news and hopefully election officials in the U.S. are paying attention to the fact that more countries are questioning e-voting than embracing it these days. More excerpts from the Register article are below.
--------
Oliver Heald MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, described the Government's e-voting plans as "reckless" and "insecure".
"Past e-voting pilots in local elections have proved expensive and not delivered any significant increase in turnout," said Heald.
"The Government must retain the tried and trusted ballot box as the foundation of British democracy.
"Restoring public confidence in our electoral system is more important than spending taxpayers' money on 'Big Brother' text messaging gimmicks.
"This lack of an adequate audit trail is extremely worrying in the light of the risk of fraud already exposed with all-postal voting," he said.
But a spokesman for the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) insisted that although people would not be able to vote electronically next year, the Government was still keen to monitor its future use.
"The Government believes that the time is not yet right to take forward the piloting of e-voting," said a spokesman.
"We are not ruling out piloting e-voting in the future and any future plans will be taken forward at the appropriate time."
The Government set out its plans for alternative voting back in 2002 when the late Robin Cook said he hoped it would "enhance citizens' involvement" in the democratic process.
In March, research carried out by pollsters MORI found that the vast majority of Brits reckon high-tech voting methods - such as voting by email or through a dedicated website - would make electoral fraud easier to commit.
--------
Oliver Heald MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, described the Government's e-voting plans as "reckless" and "insecure".
"Past e-voting pilots in local elections have proved expensive and not delivered any significant increase in turnout," said Heald.
"The Government must retain the tried and trusted ballot box as the foundation of British democracy.
"Restoring public confidence in our electoral system is more important than spending taxpayers' money on 'Big Brother' text messaging gimmicks.
"This lack of an adequate audit trail is extremely worrying in the light of the risk of fraud already exposed with all-postal voting," he said.
But a spokesman for the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) insisted that although people would not be able to vote electronically next year, the Government was still keen to monitor its future use.
"The Government believes that the time is not yet right to take forward the piloting of e-voting," said a spokesman.
"We are not ruling out piloting e-voting in the future and any future plans will be taken forward at the appropriate time."
The Government set out its plans for alternative voting back in 2002 when the late Robin Cook said he hoped it would "enhance citizens' involvement" in the democratic process.
In March, research carried out by pollsters MORI found that the vast majority of Brits reckon high-tech voting methods - such as voting by email or through a dedicated website - would make electoral fraud easier to commit.
Thursday, September 1, 2005
CVF sends letter to Governor Schwarzenegger urging him to sign SB 370
Today the California Voter Foundation sent a letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger urging him to sign SB 370/Bowen, which would require that voter-verified paper audit trails be used to verify the accuracy of software vote counts. Those wishing to contact the Governor on this bill can do so in a number of ways:
PHONE: The Governor's office has an automated phone system you can dial into, and SB 370 is now one of the bills featured in this system (it's item 3 on the phone keypad). Call 916-445-2841 and follow the instructions to register an opinion on this bill.
ONLINE: You can use the Governor's online form to contact him.
FAX: 916-445-4633
U.S. MAIL:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
PHONE: The Governor's office has an automated phone system you can dial into, and SB 370 is now one of the bills featured in this system (it's item 3 on the phone keypad). Call 916-445-2841 and follow the instructions to register an opinion on this bill.
ONLINE: You can use the Governor's online form to contact him.
FAX: 916-445-4633
U.S. MAIL:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Alameda votes to consider alternatives to Diebold; San Joaquin plans to stick with TSx's
Yesterday Alameda County's Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 to approve Interim Registrar of Voters Elaine Ginnold's plan to move from all-electronic voting to a "blended" system that relies more heavily on paper ballots. Ginnold's plan also would open up the bidding for this blended system to all vendors and not just Diebold.
Meanwhile, in San Joaquin County, Registrar of Voters Deborah Hench told the Tri-Valley Herald that she is planning to stick with Diebold's TSx machines, which at present are sitting in a county warehouse and cannot be used until they are certified and produce a voter-verified paper audit trail. Excerpts from reporter Les Mahler's article are featured below.
------------
San Joaquin County is going to stay with the Diebold Inc. touch-screen voting system and let the company iron out its problems, said the county's registrar of voters, Deborah Hench.
"The state is willing to retest them at any time," she said.
During a test in July, the secretary of state determined there were problems with the Diebold system. Hench said the problems — paper jams and screens freezing up during the voting tests — weren't as bad as reported.
During the July test, about nine of 96 machines had paper jams, and 21 screens froze, she said.
Kim Alexander, president of California Voter Foundation in Davis, said Hench is using the same math that Diebold is using.
"The secretary of state was looking at the performance of all 96 machines," she said. "The truth is that none of them worked flawlessly."
----
Hench said then that despite minor problems, the Diebold Inc. system worked fine in San Joaquin County.
She said the problem with July's tests was that there were no standards or guidelines for failure for Diebold to use in testing the machines. "The tests show that we would have paper jams," she said. "Is that fair to Diebold?"
She noted that in the July tests all the ballots were accounted for and could be read.
Also, the failure problems didn't surface until the next day when the tapes were analyzed, she said. "We found out they failed the next day. The day of the testing, everything went fine," Hench said.
But the problem is that the machines do have a failure rate, said Nghia Nguyen, spokeswoman for the Secretary of State's office.
"If you have 96 machines, and over 20 have problems, that's not good enough for California voters," Nguyen said.
Also, Diebold couldn't explain why their machines had problems, she said.
Nguyen said the secretary of state is willing to retest the system and has given that option to Diebold. But the Ohio-based manufacturer of banking ATMs hasn't responded yet.
"The secretary of state wants to give counties as many choices as possible," Nguyen said.
---
Supervisor Steve Gutierrez said the board has asked Hench for a report on the status of the Diebold touch-screen system.
"We want to know are we going to use it or not going to use it?" he asked. While the board wants feedback from Hench, he said it's up to the board to decide on whether San Joaquin County will stay with Diebold.
Meanwhile, in San Joaquin County, Registrar of Voters Deborah Hench told the Tri-Valley Herald that she is planning to stick with Diebold's TSx machines, which at present are sitting in a county warehouse and cannot be used until they are certified and produce a voter-verified paper audit trail. Excerpts from reporter Les Mahler's article are featured below.
------------
San Joaquin County is going to stay with the Diebold Inc. touch-screen voting system and let the company iron out its problems, said the county's registrar of voters, Deborah Hench.
"The state is willing to retest them at any time," she said.
During a test in July, the secretary of state determined there were problems with the Diebold system. Hench said the problems — paper jams and screens freezing up during the voting tests — weren't as bad as reported.
During the July test, about nine of 96 machines had paper jams, and 21 screens froze, she said.
Kim Alexander, president of California Voter Foundation in Davis, said Hench is using the same math that Diebold is using.
"The secretary of state was looking at the performance of all 96 machines," she said. "The truth is that none of them worked flawlessly."
----
Hench said then that despite minor problems, the Diebold Inc. system worked fine in San Joaquin County.
She said the problem with July's tests was that there were no standards or guidelines for failure for Diebold to use in testing the machines. "The tests show that we would have paper jams," she said. "Is that fair to Diebold?"
She noted that in the July tests all the ballots were accounted for and could be read.
Also, the failure problems didn't surface until the next day when the tapes were analyzed, she said. "We found out they failed the next day. The day of the testing, everything went fine," Hench said.
But the problem is that the machines do have a failure rate, said Nghia Nguyen, spokeswoman for the Secretary of State's office.
"If you have 96 machines, and over 20 have problems, that's not good enough for California voters," Nguyen said.
Also, Diebold couldn't explain why their machines had problems, she said.
Nguyen said the secretary of state is willing to retest the system and has given that option to Diebold. But the Ohio-based manufacturer of banking ATMs hasn't responded yet.
"The secretary of state wants to give counties as many choices as possible," Nguyen said.
---
Supervisor Steve Gutierrez said the board has asked Hench for a report on the status of the Diebold touch-screen system.
"We want to know are we going to use it or not going to use it?" he asked. While the board wants feedback from Hench, he said it's up to the board to decide on whether San Joaquin County will stay with Diebold.
Mercury News editorial: Paper ballot spot check is key to election integrity
Today's San Jose Mercury News features an editorial urging Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign SB 370/Bowen. It sums up the need for this bill quite well, and is featured below.
-------------
A paper trail, both during an election and afterward, is essential to ensure the integrity of electronic voting. A bill requiring the use of paper ballots during a post-election recount is heading toward the governor's desk. Despite the opposition of Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should sign it.
For four decades, state law has required that poll officials after an election do a random manual recount of 1 percent of ballots cast, as a check against election malfunction and fraud. SB 370, sponsored by Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, would require that the sample recounts for electronic voting be done using the paper printouts that voters now use to verify their ballots.
California is one of two dozen states that mandate a voter-verified paper trail for touch-screen machines. A dozen of those now use the paper printouts in a sample recount.
That should seem obvious, but not to most county registrars of voters and McPherson. They want to take the easier and quicker route of printing out electronic images of votes that the touch-screen software can create internally but that voters don't see.
The difference may seem an arcane point, but it's fundamental. If there is a glitch with the software, you won't know it by simply using images that mask the problem. Only the paper copies that voters verified when they voted can offer an accurate check.
The registrars protest that counting the paper slips would be cumbersome and might interfere with the requirement to do a recount within 28 days of an election -- a weak excuse. Some have continued to insist that a paper trail is unnecessary. But there have been enough breakdowns and bugs in touch-screen machines to warrant skepticism and justify the extra check that SB 370 would provide.
McPherson has another objection: The voter-verified paper slips don't conform in size, print clarity and paper weight to a legal ballot. That is true but shouldn't preclude their use. Regulations should be changed to incorporate the voter-verified receipts, and voting machine companies should be encouraged to produce a paper trail from larger, sturdier stock.
California took the lead in demanding accurate electronic voting. SB 370 is key to election accountability.
-------------
A paper trail, both during an election and afterward, is essential to ensure the integrity of electronic voting. A bill requiring the use of paper ballots during a post-election recount is heading toward the governor's desk. Despite the opposition of Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should sign it.
For four decades, state law has required that poll officials after an election do a random manual recount of 1 percent of ballots cast, as a check against election malfunction and fraud. SB 370, sponsored by Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Redondo Beach, would require that the sample recounts for electronic voting be done using the paper printouts that voters now use to verify their ballots.
California is one of two dozen states that mandate a voter-verified paper trail for touch-screen machines. A dozen of those now use the paper printouts in a sample recount.
That should seem obvious, but not to most county registrars of voters and McPherson. They want to take the easier and quicker route of printing out electronic images of votes that the touch-screen software can create internally but that voters don't see.
The difference may seem an arcane point, but it's fundamental. If there is a glitch with the software, you won't know it by simply using images that mask the problem. Only the paper copies that voters verified when they voted can offer an accurate check.
The registrars protest that counting the paper slips would be cumbersome and might interfere with the requirement to do a recount within 28 days of an election -- a weak excuse. Some have continued to insist that a paper trail is unnecessary. But there have been enough breakdowns and bugs in touch-screen machines to warrant skepticism and justify the extra check that SB 370 would provide.
McPherson has another objection: The voter-verified paper slips don't conform in size, print clarity and paper weight to a legal ballot. That is true but shouldn't preclude their use. Regulations should be changed to incorporate the voter-verified receipts, and voting machine companies should be encouraged to produce a paper trail from larger, sturdier stock.
California took the lead in demanding accurate electronic voting. SB 370 is key to election accountability.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Alameda County Board of Supervisors will vote today on voting technology plans
Today the Alameda County Board of Supervisors will meet and vote on whether to endorse the Registrar of Voter's plan to move from an all-electronic voting system to a "blended" system, relying more heavily on paper ballots in the polls. The county is also going to decide whether to open the bidding for a new system to all vendors. The new plan represents a significant shift in Alameda County -- just two months ago the supervisors voted to stick with Diebold and an all-electronic voting system. The supervisors' meeting starts at 10 a.m. and this issue is item 15 on the agenda. A live audio webcast of the meeting is available online.
These developments in Alameda are welcome news. Back in June, when I addressed the Board of Supervisors I made several recommendations, including that they go with a blended system and open up their equipment procurement process to other vendors. I left that June board meeting deeply disappointed by the course of action the county chose to take. Hopefully today the board will vote to change their course and move toward greater reliance on paper voting systems, which are more transparent, affordable and secure than electronic voting machines.
These developments in Alameda are welcome news. Back in June, when I addressed the Board of Supervisors I made several recommendations, including that they go with a blended system and open up their equipment procurement process to other vendors. I left that June board meeting deeply disappointed by the course of action the county chose to take. Hopefully today the board will vote to change their course and move toward greater reliance on paper voting systems, which are more transparent, affordable and secure than electronic voting machines.
SB 370 heads to the Governor's desk
Today's Oakland Tribune features a story by Ian Hoffman on yesterday's unanimous vote in the State Senate to pass SB 370, authored by State Senator Debra Bowen, who also issued a news release about the passage of her bill. Excerpts from the Oakland Tribune article are below.
----------
California is on the verge of turning away from electrons and toward paper as the ultimate arbiter of democratic choice, with final passage Monday of a bill requiring the use of paper trails for recounting votes.
California already was among 26 states requiring electronic voting machines to produce a backup paper record for voters to see and confirm their electronic votes.
If the governor signs the bill, the state will join a dozen of those states where elections officials also plan to use those printouts for any automatic recount or an election challenge. California is close on the heels of New York, West Virginia and other states that passed similar laws within the last two months, according to researchers at Electionline.org, a nonpartisan clearinghouse for voting-reform information.State senators sent the bill to the governor on a lopsided 36-0 vote after scarcely any debate.
Computer scientists conceived of the paper trail as a partial safeguard against fraud and error in computerized voting.
"No voting machine is going to be 100 percent error-free, 100 percent of the time," said Debra Bowen, D-Marina Del Rey, the bill's author. "But unlike with paper, when it comes to electronic data, a small human error, a technology glitch or a tampering incident can change thousands of votes in an instant."
Her legislation would treat electronic ballots as the legal record of the vote but rely on the paper trail for California's mandatory hand count of ballots in 1 percent of precincts.
"People need and deserve to know their votes have been counted accurately, and the best way to ensure that is to make sure there's a paper printout of every electronic ballot," she said.
So far, the paper trails produced by suppliers of computerized touch-screen voting machines have been double rolls of curly, thermal paper that tend to jam on some machines.
"Boy, it's pretty clunky. And it didn't have to be this clunky," said David Wagner, an assistant professor of computer science and a voting-security scholar at the University of California, Berkeley. "The vendors could have built machines with a paper trail that was more convenient for elections officials and voters, but it didn't happen."
Local elections officials who embraced electronic voting as a way to rid themselves of paper fought the paper trail and fought its use in recounts. California's chief elections officer, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, has opposed Bowen's bill because he says the paper rolls don't look anything like a ballot and shouldn't be treated like one.
But if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs the bill — aides said he has made no decision — voters in counties using touch-screens could be seeing paper trails for a long time, and those little slips could become ensconced in state election law as a decider of elections.
----
If a new technology for verifying votes did come along, experts on voting and elections say they doubt elections officials will have the money or desire to buy it for several years at least.
"You just see counties wanting to slide through this and get it done," said Sean Greene, Electionline.org's research director.
After the 2006 elections, he and Wagner said, voting technology is likely to settle down.
"Elections officials are not going to have the appetite to change their systems for some time," Wagner said.
----------
California is on the verge of turning away from electrons and toward paper as the ultimate arbiter of democratic choice, with final passage Monday of a bill requiring the use of paper trails for recounting votes.
California already was among 26 states requiring electronic voting machines to produce a backup paper record for voters to see and confirm their electronic votes.
If the governor signs the bill, the state will join a dozen of those states where elections officials also plan to use those printouts for any automatic recount or an election challenge. California is close on the heels of New York, West Virginia and other states that passed similar laws within the last two months, according to researchers at Electionline.org, a nonpartisan clearinghouse for voting-reform information.State senators sent the bill to the governor on a lopsided 36-0 vote after scarcely any debate.
Computer scientists conceived of the paper trail as a partial safeguard against fraud and error in computerized voting.
"No voting machine is going to be 100 percent error-free, 100 percent of the time," said Debra Bowen, D-Marina Del Rey, the bill's author. "But unlike with paper, when it comes to electronic data, a small human error, a technology glitch or a tampering incident can change thousands of votes in an instant."
Her legislation would treat electronic ballots as the legal record of the vote but rely on the paper trail for California's mandatory hand count of ballots in 1 percent of precincts.
"People need and deserve to know their votes have been counted accurately, and the best way to ensure that is to make sure there's a paper printout of every electronic ballot," she said.
So far, the paper trails produced by suppliers of computerized touch-screen voting machines have been double rolls of curly, thermal paper that tend to jam on some machines.
"Boy, it's pretty clunky. And it didn't have to be this clunky," said David Wagner, an assistant professor of computer science and a voting-security scholar at the University of California, Berkeley. "The vendors could have built machines with a paper trail that was more convenient for elections officials and voters, but it didn't happen."
Local elections officials who embraced electronic voting as a way to rid themselves of paper fought the paper trail and fought its use in recounts. California's chief elections officer, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, has opposed Bowen's bill because he says the paper rolls don't look anything like a ballot and shouldn't be treated like one.
But if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signs the bill — aides said he has made no decision — voters in counties using touch-screens could be seeing paper trails for a long time, and those little slips could become ensconced in state election law as a decider of elections.
----
If a new technology for verifying votes did come along, experts on voting and elections say they doubt elections officials will have the money or desire to buy it for several years at least.
"You just see counties wanting to slide through this and get it done," said Sean Greene, Electionline.org's research director.
After the 2006 elections, he and Wagner said, voting technology is likely to settle down.
"Elections officials are not going to have the appetite to change their systems for some time," Wagner said.
Monday, August 29, 2005
SB 370 passes the Senate on a unanimous vote
A few moments ago the California State Senate took up and passed SB 370 by Senator Debra Bowen, which requires that voter verified paper audit trails be used to verify the accuracy of computerized software vote counts. Bowen's bill passed unanimously in the Senate today, and also enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the Assembly, where it passed last Thursday, with nearly half of the Assembly Republican Caucus voting in favor.
This strong, bipartisan support for SB 370 will be important as the Governor considers whether to sign this bill. Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's opposition was a setback, but evidently it did not persuade a single member of the Senate to vote against SB 370 before sending the bill to the Governor.
Now the focus will turn to Governor Schwarzenegger, who has until October 9 to sign or veto SB 370. Those who wish to contact the Governor on this bill can send an electronic message using the online form at www.govmail.ca.gov or by phone, fax, or U.S. mail.
U.S. Mail:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633
This strong, bipartisan support for SB 370 will be important as the Governor considers whether to sign this bill. Secretary of State Bruce McPherson's opposition was a setback, but evidently it did not persuade a single member of the Senate to vote against SB 370 before sending the bill to the Governor.
Now the focus will turn to Governor Schwarzenegger, who has until October 9 to sign or veto SB 370. Those who wish to contact the Governor on this bill can send an electronic message using the online form at www.govmail.ca.gov or by phone, fax, or U.S. mail.
U.S. Mail:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
