The study that the California Voter Foundation released yesterday, Grading State Disclosure 2007, has been covered by news outlets across the country. In addition, the Campaign Finance Institute issued this news release highlighting the fact that while thirty states require electronic filing, the U.S. Senate still does not. Links to some of the articles and excerpts are featured below.
Stateline.org: Report ranks campaign disclosure laws, by Eric Kelderman, October 17, 2007. Excerpt:
While nearly all states make detailed contribution and spending information available online, 36 states now have a searchable database for donations -- an increase of nine states since 2003. Twenty-four states also allow searches on spending, compared to 17 states that allowed that four years ago.
"Having the data arrive in a digital format enables disclosure agencies to place it on the Internet where it can be accessed immediately by the public," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.
The Associated Press: Alabama ranks 49th in national campaign disclosure study, by Phillip Rawls, October 17, 2007. Excerpt:
Secretary of State Beth Chapman, the state's chief election official, called the ranking "an embarrassment," but she said the Legislature is the only group that can make campaign finance disclosure more thorough and transparent.
The national campaign finance study ranked Washington first, followed by California and Oregon. Florida and Hawaii tied for fourth.
The rankings are done to encourage states to make improvements that will give voters more information about who is financing campaigns.
"You need a strong disclosure law to make sure the data available to the public is timely and meaningful," Alexander said.
The Wichita Eagle: Kansas ranking falls in study of campaign law, by Dion Lefler, October 17, 2007. Excerpts:
Kansas' campaign finance disclosure laws remain among the nation's weakest, but state agencies that run the system are making it easier for the public to access the information that is available, according to a new national study.
Overall, Kansas rose from an "F" to a "D" on the 2007 study by the nonpartisan Campaign Disclosure Project.
But on campaign finance law, Kansas slipped from "D" to "D-minus," falling to 42nd of the 50 states.
That's a drop from No. 37 in the last survey, in 2005.
The project was especially critical of the state's campaign finance reporting deadlines, which allow contributions just before an election to go unreported until months later.
"A major deficiency in Kansas law is the reporting gap that occurs in the 11 days preceding a general election, hiding last-minute spending from the public until after the election," the report said.
---
An exasperated Rep. Pat Colloton, R-Leawood, said Kansas campaign laws should score higher and would, if House leaders would allow votes on bills to strengthen disclosure requirements.
"We've dropped in disclosure? Yep, that would be us," Colloton said. "The fact that leadership in the House won't allow this to come forward I think is a travesty."
---
The one bill that passed that was applauded by the UCLA study group was a measure to allow candidates to file contribution reports electronically -- which is seen as a step toward closing the 11-day disclosure gap.
Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh's office is in the process of setting up a system to accept and sort those reports.
Thornburgh said he would have preferred that electronic reporting be mandatory but thinks the voluntary system can work if it is easier, faster and cheaper than filing on paper.
---
Kansas moved from an "F" to a "D" on its overall scorecard mainly because of improvements in online access to campaign-finance records maintained by the Ethics Commission.
The national study complimented the commission for faster posting of reports and putting more information on line.
Two years ago, Kansas scored a "C" in online usability and ranked 10th in the nation. Now it has a "B" and moved up to No. 5.
Williams credited the commission's information technology director, Janet Williams -- no relation -- for the improved Web access.
She added that the department Web site is undergoing another major overhaul to make it even easier to use.
"It's a never-ending process," she said.
The Associated Press: Montana earns 'F' for campaign disclosure; improvements expected, by Matt Gouras, October 17, 2007. Excerpt:
A study released Wednesday found Montana ranked 47th in the nation for campaign disclosure, earning the state an "F." Montana is one of only two states that does not offer any online access to campaign data, such as donations made to candidates, the California Voter Foundation said.
Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Dennis Unsworth said he welcomed the study as he works toward a new searchable database expected to debut on the Internet in early 2008.
"I think this group in California does a good service. It's helpful for us, it reinforces where we ought to put our attention," Unsworth said.
The Oregonian: Campaign disclosure receives high marks; Online system - National watchdogs rate Oregon's as 'most improved', by Dave Hogan, October 18, 2007. Excerpt:
In a report released Wednesday, the Campaign Disclosure Project gave Oregon a B-plus, rating it third in the country, behind Washington and California. That's up from a 24th-place ranking in 2005.
The report credited the improvement to campaign finance legislation approved during the 2005 Legislature and the new Oregon Elections System for Tracking and Reporting, or ORESTAR. The online publicly-searchable system was launched in January.
Watchdog groups have been praising the new online system and credited the Legislature, Gov. Ted Kulongoski and Secretary of State Bill Bradbury's staff for Wednesday's high-flying grades.
"Naming Oregon in that way is totally justified," said Janice Thompson, executive director of Democracy Reform Oregon, which monitors campaign fundraising and spending. "It's pretty exciting."
The Associated Press: Nevada gets 'F' for campaign finance disclosure, by Brendan Riley, October 18, 2007. Excerpt:
The report's authors say Nevada was among 14 states that failed to meet its criteria for a satisfactory campaign disclosure program. Thirty-six states got passing grades, up from 34 two years ago.
Nevada lawmakers have made gradual improvements to campaign finance reporting standards over the years, but have failed to provide funding for major changes such as a searchable electronic database that would make it simple for people to see a candidate's source of campaign dollars.
Sacramento Bee/Capitol Alert: California ranks 2nd on disclosure rules, by Shane Goldmacher, October 17, 2007. Excerpt:
California ranks second in the nation in campaign finance disclosures, according to a report today from the California Voter Foundation.
The only state to top California was Washington, which earned an A-minus in the study. California was given a B-plus, the same grade given to Oregon, Florida and Hawaii.
Overall, 36 states were given a passing grade, and 14 earned an F.
"Access to campaign finance data enables voters to make informed election choices and hold politicians accountable," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, in a statement. "This study helps the public determine how their state's disclosure programs compare with others, and provides resources and incentives to help states improve."
Finally, as Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez is in the news for how he has been spending campaign cash, Alexander notes that California is one of only two states that do not require politicians to identify the date that an expenditure is made.
The New Mexican: Campaign-law study again flunks N.M., by Steve Terrell, October 17, 2007. Excerpt:
The New Mexico Legislature has resisted proposals to require greater disclosure. Last month legislative leaders from both political parties denied that there is need for more disclosure and questioned the motives of those pushing for reform.
The coalition began evaluating states in 2003. New Mexico, which has received failing grades in the previous three studies by the coalition, was one of 14 states to get a flunking grade in the latest study.
Legislators this year tried to gut a state law requiring electronic filing of campaign finance reports. The electronic filing law is the only area in which New Mexico received a grade of "A" in the study. The Legislature passed a bill this year that would have made electronic filing optional, but Gov. Bill Richardson vetoed it.
The study noted some improvement this year in the Secretary of State's Web site -- but not enough to give it a passing grade.
"Though plans for a searchable database of campaign data were reported in Grading State Disclosure 2005, New Mexico's disclosure site still does not offer this valuable tool," the report says. "Despite the move to electronic filing in 2006, more timely access to disclosure records online has not followed," the report says. For months after the 2006 general election, the final campaign finance reports of many candidates were not available.
A spokesman for the Secretary of State's Office has said several times that budget restraints have hampered that Web site.
Argus Leader (South Dakota): S.D. gets an 'F' for campaign laws., by Terry Woster, October 18, 2007. Excerpts:
South Dakota received a failing grade for 2007 in campaign disclosure laws from a California-based group that says changes made in the last Legislature should improve future scores.
- - -
The grade doesn't surprise House Democratic Leader Dale Hargens of Miller, who said the state could strengthen its law. "I think we improved it somewhat this last session," he said. "We'll see how it works out. When you make changes like we did, within the next two to four years you often have to go back in and fix some problems you caused."
- - -
"Reports can be browsed in PDF, but itemized data cannot be sorted, searched or downloaded, which is the main reason South Dakota received an F for disclosure content accessibility again in 2007," the report stated.
Nelson has said the state considered a searchable database but questioned whether the cost would be justified for the relatively limited number of filings each year.
Republican Rep. Joni Cutler of Sioux Falls asked the same question.
"What would we get that would be meaningful for the people of South Dakota?" Cutler asked. "What kind of improvements will that make, compared to the cost?"
The Olympian (Washington): PDC wins No. 1 ranking for campaign disclosure, by Brad Shannon, October 17, 2007. Excerpt:
For the fourth time in as many years, the state Public Disclosure Commission ranks No. 1 in the country for campaign disclosure.
That's according to the Campaign Disclosure project, which awarded Washington an A-minus grade, tops of any state. No. 2 was California, followed by Oregon, Florida and Hawaii, all with B-plus grades in the fourth year of grading by the project.
Oregon was rated most improved in 2007. In all 14, states had flunking or F grades, 36 states passed and 21 had higher grades than in previous years.
The Associated Press: Wyoming earns 'F' for campaign finance disclosure, by Mead Gruver, October 17, 2007. Excerpt:
"Wyoming's law overall is keeping the public in the dark about disclosure data, particularly before an election," said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Association, which organized the study.
However, Alexander said Wyoming's secretary of state's office seemed willing to increase disclosure, provided it got help particularly funding from the Legislature.
Wyoming's elections director, Peggy Nighswonger, said Wednesday that she was working with lawmakers on a bill that would require electronic filing of campaign finance data. The bill would go before the Legislature this winter.
"That will really bring our grade up," she said. "That's what they really knock us down on, is that we don't have a searchable database where people can see campaign finance information online."
Nighswonger said she's been advocating for years to put more campaign finance data online.
"The Legislature has not wanted to go this way," she said.
Wyoming got an "F" grade and ranked at or near the bottom in all four areas assessed:
The state's campaign disclosure law ranked 47th. The report pointed out that Wyoming candidates don't have to report their occupation or employer, and they don't have to disclose their donors' cumulative contributions.
Wyoming has no way for candidates to file information electronically. Still, the state ranked 41st for electronic filing because the bill being drafted for next year's legislative session would implement electronic filing in Wyoming in 2010.
Along with Montana, Wyoming is one of just two states that does not post campaign finance information online. In Wyoming, people seeking such data have to go to the secretary of state's office or request copies for 15 cents a page. Wyoming ranked last for accessibility to campaign finance data.
Wyoming ranked 45th for how easily people are able to find campaign information online. Even though Wyoming doesn't report campaign finance figures online, the report said the secretary of state's Web site is easy to navigate and generally offers good information.
"The public is also able to view complete, detailed lists of candidates that include the name, office sought, party affiliation as well as candidates' contact and Web site information," the report said.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
36 states pass, 14 fail nationwide campaign finance disclosure assessment
Today the California Voter Foundation released Grading State Disclosure 2007, a comprehensive, nationwide study of states' campaign finance disclosure programs. 36 states received passing grades and 14 failed in this year's assessment. 21 states' grades improved since 2005, the last time the Grading State Disclosure study was conducted.
Among the most significant findings, 40 states now permit campaigns to file disclosure reports electronically; of these, 30 require electronic filing by statewide candidates, and 23 of those states also require legislative candidates to file their reports electronically. Having campaign data arrive in a digital format enables disclosure agencies to place it on the Internet where it can be accessed immediately by the public. The study found that 90 percent of states that operate electronic filing programs also provide searchable, online databases of campaign contributions; among states with no electronic filing program, only 40 percent offer searchable, online contribution databases.
The assessment was conducted by the Campaign Disclosure Project, which seeks to bring greater transparency and accountability to money in state politics. The project is a collaboration of the California Voter Foundation, the Center for Governmental Studies and the UCLA School of Law and is supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts. For more details, see today's news release.
Among the most significant findings, 40 states now permit campaigns to file disclosure reports electronically; of these, 30 require electronic filing by statewide candidates, and 23 of those states also require legislative candidates to file their reports electronically. Having campaign data arrive in a digital format enables disclosure agencies to place it on the Internet where it can be accessed immediately by the public. The study found that 90 percent of states that operate electronic filing programs also provide searchable, online databases of campaign contributions; among states with no electronic filing program, only 40 percent offer searchable, online contribution databases.
The assessment was conducted by the Campaign Disclosure Project, which seeks to bring greater transparency and accountability to money in state politics. The project is a collaboration of the California Voter Foundation, the Center for Governmental Studies and the UCLA School of Law and is supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts. For more details, see today's news release.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Nationwide study evaluating campaign finance disclosure to be released Oct. 17
On Wednesday, October 17, the California Voter Foundation will release Grading State Disclosure 2007, a nationwide study that evaluates, grades and ranks all fifty states' campaign finance disclosure performance. The study will be online at www.campaigndisclosure.org. The assessment was conducted by the Campaign Disclosure Project, which seeks to bring greater transparency and accountability to money in state politics. The project is a collaboration of the California Voter Foundation, the Center for Governmental Studies and the UCLA School of Law and is supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
California voting machines decertified
California Secretary of State Debra Bowen withdrew certification of every voting system in California, and recertified several components with certain conditions. Her decertification orders and recertification/use requirements were issued literally at the stroke of midnight. Several TV camera crews were camped out at Bowen's office all afternoon and late into the evening waiting to find out what she would decide to do about California's voting equipment. Recent studies by UC researchers found the hardware and software of many of the components were vulnerable to attacks or viruses.
Secretary of State Bowen is allowing the Hart electronic system to be used, with certain conditions. The Sequoia Edge and Diebold TSx machines can only be used on a limited basis for accessible and early voting, subject to a 100 percent manual recount of the machines' voter verified paper records. ES&S' Ink-a-Vote system, which is used by Los Angeles County, was decertified because the company failed to meet the Secretary of State's review requirements.
Although August 3 was the deadline for decertification decisions, there is no deadline for recertification. I expect many of the vendors, counties, and the Secretary of State will be working together over the next few months to figure out how to meet the recertification requirements.
The decertification orders are available online. Today's Riverside Press Enterprise story by By Michelle DeArmond and Kimberly Trone, below, provides an excellent overview.
---------------
Electronic Voting Decertified
Riverside Press Enterprise
August 4, 2007
Riverside and San Bernardino counties, which have been at the forefront of the electronic voting movement in California, might be using paper ballots in the February presidential primary, Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced early Saturday.
After hours behind closed doors, Bowen announced a decision to decertify electronic voting systems across the state just minutes after a midnight deadline, which is six months before the presidential primary in February.
In a document outlining the new requirements, Bowen gave local governments and electronic voting manufacturers 45 days to provide comprehensive security plans for their systems, but it was unclear early Saturday how that might affect the machines' use in February.
Before any machines are used in the primary election, Bowen is requiring that they be reinstalled with voting system application software obtained directly from the federal testing laboratory or her office.
Bowen also laid out numerous rules aimed at increasing transparency and bolstering citizen participation in the elections process.
Registrars in Riverside and San Bernardino counties could not be reached for comment early Saturday.
But recently Riverside County Registrar Barbara Dunmore told county supervisors she would be prepared for whatever decision Bowen made -- even if it meant a return to paper ballots.
Bowen, who campaigned in 2006 as an outspoken critic of the state's voting system, has been critical of the Sequoia Voting System's machines used in Riverside and San Bernardino counties for months.
In May, she ordered a review of electronic voting systems in use throughout the state. California law requires periodic reviews and the electronic systems fared poorly in Bowen's five-week analysis.
Computer experts from the University of California tested the electronic voting systems and found vulnerabilities in the Sequoia machines that made it easy to change the recorded votes. They found similar problems with Diebold Election and the Hart InterCivic systems as well.
Other counties that used touch-screen machines, including Alameda, Merced and Solano, already have switched from to paper-based systems in the wake of the growing scrutiny and complaints.
David Beirne, executive director for the Election Technology Council, a trade association of electronic voting manufacturers based in Texas, said Bowen's security test was flawed.
Electronic voting systems manufacturers paid for Bowen's $1.8 million review.
Beirne said researchers were given unfettered access to voting systems without the "real world" safeguards local elections officials use to prevent elections tampering, which they have acknowledged.
The council encouraged the testing to include experienced election officials and to apply the common physical security measures such as locks, tamper-evident seals and adequate password requirements.
Tom Courbat, founder of the elections integrity group that has lobbied for paper ballots used with optical scanners and criticized Riverside County's security, hailed Bowen's decision.
Courbat, whose group is called SAVE R VOTE, said that with the absence of any comprehensive plan to safeguard the systems' integrity, electronic voting machines would be used on a limited scale for disabled voters and then completely audited.
"Voters in Riverside County can breathe a sigh of relief," Courbat said.
The decision follows years of conflict between the secretaries of state and counties that use touch-screen voting machines. In the latest debate, attention on Riverside County's system and leaders has intensified amid growing criticism of the machines.
Riverside County supervisors late last year appointed a panel of retired judges and public servants to review the county's elections process in the wake of complaints about long lines and technical malfunctions at the November polls.
After several public hearings, expert testimony and study sessions, the panel recommended last month that the county immediately return to paper ballots.
The commission found no evidence of any significant error or defect in the county's touch screen system but said it hadn't gained voter confidence and failed to meet expectations of reliability and cost savings.
Retired Superior Court Judge Robert George Taylor, a member of the panel, told the Board of Supervisors that after months of reviewing information about the electronic system he had lost trust in it.
Riverside County, which has spent $25 million on the ATM-styled devices, was the first in California to put electronic-voting systems to widespread use in 2000. San Bernardino County started using a newer version of the same system in 2004.
Shortly thereafter, then-Secretary of State Kevin Shelley revoked the certification of all touch-screen machines in the state, declaring them unreliable and subject to security breaches.
Riverside and San Bernardino counties sued the state, but a federal judge ruled Shelley had the right to decertify the machines. After three months of negotiations with Shelley, both counties dropped out of the lawsuit and agreed to comply with additional security measures in order to get their machines recertified.
Sequoia Voting Systems, which provides machines for both counties, also had to comply with new security measures in time for the November election.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit, nonpartisan the California Voter Foundation, said she knew changes in technology and security standards have posed ever-changing challenges for registrars.
"I'm sympathetic to the registrars. They would like to feel like the ground is not continuously shifting underneath them," she said Friday. "We've been in a state of transition for six years in California now."
Nonetheless, preventing voter disenfranchisement and protecting the integrity of the results trumps other concerns, she said. Additionally, Alexander said the long-term costs of switching to a paper-based system likely would be cheaper.
Reach Kimberly Trone at 951-368-9456 or ktrone@PE.com
Secretary of State Bowen is allowing the Hart electronic system to be used, with certain conditions. The Sequoia Edge and Diebold TSx machines can only be used on a limited basis for accessible and early voting, subject to a 100 percent manual recount of the machines' voter verified paper records. ES&S' Ink-a-Vote system, which is used by Los Angeles County, was decertified because the company failed to meet the Secretary of State's review requirements.
Although August 3 was the deadline for decertification decisions, there is no deadline for recertification. I expect many of the vendors, counties, and the Secretary of State will be working together over the next few months to figure out how to meet the recertification requirements.
The decertification orders are available online. Today's Riverside Press Enterprise story by By Michelle DeArmond and Kimberly Trone, below, provides an excellent overview.
---------------
Electronic Voting Decertified
Riverside Press Enterprise
August 4, 2007
Riverside and San Bernardino counties, which have been at the forefront of the electronic voting movement in California, might be using paper ballots in the February presidential primary, Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced early Saturday.
After hours behind closed doors, Bowen announced a decision to decertify electronic voting systems across the state just minutes after a midnight deadline, which is six months before the presidential primary in February.
In a document outlining the new requirements, Bowen gave local governments and electronic voting manufacturers 45 days to provide comprehensive security plans for their systems, but it was unclear early Saturday how that might affect the machines' use in February.
Before any machines are used in the primary election, Bowen is requiring that they be reinstalled with voting system application software obtained directly from the federal testing laboratory or her office.
Bowen also laid out numerous rules aimed at increasing transparency and bolstering citizen participation in the elections process.
Registrars in Riverside and San Bernardino counties could not be reached for comment early Saturday.
But recently Riverside County Registrar Barbara Dunmore told county supervisors she would be prepared for whatever decision Bowen made -- even if it meant a return to paper ballots.
Bowen, who campaigned in 2006 as an outspoken critic of the state's voting system, has been critical of the Sequoia Voting System's machines used in Riverside and San Bernardino counties for months.
In May, she ordered a review of electronic voting systems in use throughout the state. California law requires periodic reviews and the electronic systems fared poorly in Bowen's five-week analysis.
Computer experts from the University of California tested the electronic voting systems and found vulnerabilities in the Sequoia machines that made it easy to change the recorded votes. They found similar problems with Diebold Election and the Hart InterCivic systems as well.
Other counties that used touch-screen machines, including Alameda, Merced and Solano, already have switched from to paper-based systems in the wake of the growing scrutiny and complaints.
David Beirne, executive director for the Election Technology Council, a trade association of electronic voting manufacturers based in Texas, said Bowen's security test was flawed.
Electronic voting systems manufacturers paid for Bowen's $1.8 million review.
Beirne said researchers were given unfettered access to voting systems without the "real world" safeguards local elections officials use to prevent elections tampering, which they have acknowledged.
The council encouraged the testing to include experienced election officials and to apply the common physical security measures such as locks, tamper-evident seals and adequate password requirements.
Tom Courbat, founder of the elections integrity group that has lobbied for paper ballots used with optical scanners and criticized Riverside County's security, hailed Bowen's decision.
Courbat, whose group is called SAVE R VOTE, said that with the absence of any comprehensive plan to safeguard the systems' integrity, electronic voting machines would be used on a limited scale for disabled voters and then completely audited.
"Voters in Riverside County can breathe a sigh of relief," Courbat said.
The decision follows years of conflict between the secretaries of state and counties that use touch-screen voting machines. In the latest debate, attention on Riverside County's system and leaders has intensified amid growing criticism of the machines.
Riverside County supervisors late last year appointed a panel of retired judges and public servants to review the county's elections process in the wake of complaints about long lines and technical malfunctions at the November polls.
After several public hearings, expert testimony and study sessions, the panel recommended last month that the county immediately return to paper ballots.
The commission found no evidence of any significant error or defect in the county's touch screen system but said it hadn't gained voter confidence and failed to meet expectations of reliability and cost savings.
Retired Superior Court Judge Robert George Taylor, a member of the panel, told the Board of Supervisors that after months of reviewing information about the electronic system he had lost trust in it.
Riverside County, which has spent $25 million on the ATM-styled devices, was the first in California to put electronic-voting systems to widespread use in 2000. San Bernardino County started using a newer version of the same system in 2004.
Shortly thereafter, then-Secretary of State Kevin Shelley revoked the certification of all touch-screen machines in the state, declaring them unreliable and subject to security breaches.
Riverside and San Bernardino counties sued the state, but a federal judge ruled Shelley had the right to decertify the machines. After three months of negotiations with Shelley, both counties dropped out of the lawsuit and agreed to comply with additional security measures in order to get their machines recertified.
Sequoia Voting Systems, which provides machines for both counties, also had to comply with new security measures in time for the November election.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonprofit, nonpartisan the California Voter Foundation, said she knew changes in technology and security standards have posed ever-changing challenges for registrars.
"I'm sympathetic to the registrars. They would like to feel like the ground is not continuously shifting underneath them," she said Friday. "We've been in a state of transition for six years in California now."
Nonetheless, preventing voter disenfranchisement and protecting the integrity of the results trumps other concerns, she said. Additionally, Alexander said the long-term costs of switching to a paper-based system likely would be cheaper.
Reach Kimberly Trone at 951-368-9456 or ktrone@PE.com
Friday, August 3, 2007
Voting system evaluations, reports and decisions
Well, it's been a long time since I've blogged -- it was nice having a break these past few months. Now things are getting busy again, and there is so much going on that I decided it was time to post a new blog entry with links to some important reports that have recently been released.
The big news in California is that the Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, recently completed her "top-to-bottom" review of voting systems. Computer scientists and other academics from UC Berkeley and UC Davis led the review. Most of their public reports are now available at the Secretary of State's web site. (We are still awaiting release of the third and final set of reports, completed by the documents review team.) See the Secretary of State's July 27 news release for more details.
On Monday, July 30, Secretary Bowen convened a public hearing on the review at her auditorium in Sacramento. The hearing lasted all day, beginning with testimony from UC Davis computer science professor Matt Bishop, followed by statements from respresentatives of the three vendors whose systems were evaluated (Sequoia, Hart and Diebold). Numerous citizen activists opposed to electronic voting spoke during the day; so did many county election officials, most of whom expressed disappointment that the review was not conducted in a "real-world" environment, taking into account procedures in place at the local level the prevent security violations.
I spoke at the hearing as well, and said that voting system security should not be dependent on procedures being carried out at the local level. Procedures vary widely from county to county, and with 58 counties, 25,000 precincts, and 100,000+ pollworkers in a statewide election, it is impossible to monitor or verify compliance in all polling places. Video from the California Channel and a transcript from the Secretary of State are available.
If you're wondering what all this means, there are a few blog postings that help sort out these important developments. In particular, take a look at recent posts from Ed Felten, Avi Rubin, and Matt Blaze.
Also released was the Post Election Audit Standards Working Group report to the Secretary of State, outlining numerous ways that auditing after the election could be strengthened to increase voter confidence and improve the auditing process. I served on this committee, and the options outlined in our report will be beneficial to the Secretary of State and counties as they consider ways to address security problems in our current voting systems. The audit working group's report is online, along with a news release from the Secretary of State announcing the report.
Meanwhile, elsewhere around the country....
The much-anticipated report, "Post Elections Audits: Restoring Trust in Elections" was recently released. A joint production of The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, the report details how few states are fully equipped to find sophisticated and targeted software-based attacks, non-systemic programming errors and software bugs that could change the outcome of an election. See the news release for addtional highlights.
In Florida, a new report was issued this week by the Security and Assurance in Technology (SAIT) Laboratory at Florida State University. The SAIT researchers examined Diebold's latest version of its electronic voting machine, found numerous problems and recommended the state not award certification.
Another report about Florida's election was also issued today. It comes from the Government Accounting Office, which examined Sarasota County's voting system after 18,000 undervotes were cast in a closely contested congressional race last November and issued this progress report to Congress.
The big news in California is that the Secretary of State, Debra Bowen, recently completed her "top-to-bottom" review of voting systems. Computer scientists and other academics from UC Berkeley and UC Davis led the review. Most of their public reports are now available at the Secretary of State's web site. (We are still awaiting release of the third and final set of reports, completed by the documents review team.) See the Secretary of State's July 27 news release for more details.
On Monday, July 30, Secretary Bowen convened a public hearing on the review at her auditorium in Sacramento. The hearing lasted all day, beginning with testimony from UC Davis computer science professor Matt Bishop, followed by statements from respresentatives of the three vendors whose systems were evaluated (Sequoia, Hart and Diebold). Numerous citizen activists opposed to electronic voting spoke during the day; so did many county election officials, most of whom expressed disappointment that the review was not conducted in a "real-world" environment, taking into account procedures in place at the local level the prevent security violations.
I spoke at the hearing as well, and said that voting system security should not be dependent on procedures being carried out at the local level. Procedures vary widely from county to county, and with 58 counties, 25,000 precincts, and 100,000+ pollworkers in a statewide election, it is impossible to monitor or verify compliance in all polling places. Video from the California Channel and a transcript from the Secretary of State are available.
If you're wondering what all this means, there are a few blog postings that help sort out these important developments. In particular, take a look at recent posts from Ed Felten, Avi Rubin, and Matt Blaze.
Also released was the Post Election Audit Standards Working Group report to the Secretary of State, outlining numerous ways that auditing after the election could be strengthened to increase voter confidence and improve the auditing process. I served on this committee, and the options outlined in our report will be beneficial to the Secretary of State and counties as they consider ways to address security problems in our current voting systems. The audit working group's report is online, along with a news release from the Secretary of State announcing the report.
Meanwhile, elsewhere around the country....
The much-anticipated report, "Post Elections Audits: Restoring Trust in Elections" was recently released. A joint production of The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, the report details how few states are fully equipped to find sophisticated and targeted software-based attacks, non-systemic programming errors and software bugs that could change the outcome of an election. See the news release for addtional highlights.
In Florida, a new report was issued this week by the Security and Assurance in Technology (SAIT) Laboratory at Florida State University. The SAIT researchers examined Diebold's latest version of its electronic voting machine, found numerous problems and recommended the state not award certification.
Another report about Florida's election was also issued today. It comes from the Government Accounting Office, which examined Sarasota County's voting system after 18,000 undervotes were cast in a closely contested congressional race last November and issued this progress report to Congress.
Monday, February 5, 2007
U.S. Senate Hearing on Electronic Voting Wednesday, Feb. 7
This Wednesday the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules and Administration will hold a public hearing titled, "The Hazards of Electronic Voting: Focus on the Machinery of Democracy". The hearing begins at 10 a.m. Eastern time, in room SR-301 of the Russell Senate Office Building. There is a robust lineup of witnesses including: Congressman Rush Holt, author of federal legislation to mandate a federal voter-verified paper record requirement; Lowell Finley, California's new Deputy Secretary of State who has litigated successful challenges to voting systems in California and other states; Professor Dan Wallach of Rice University; Conny McCormack, Los Angeles County's registrar of voters; and Warren Stewart, policy director for Vote Trust USA.
Hopefully the hearing will be carried on TV via C-SPAN; from looking at their web site, it appears that the hearing will be webcast live on the site CapitolHearings.org.
Hopefully the hearing will be carried on TV via C-SPAN; from looking at their web site, it appears that the hearing will be webcast live on the site CapitolHearings.org.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Social Security data puts 1.3 million voters at risk
Yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times featured this story by Art Golab reporting on a class action lawsuit that was filed Monday stemming from the release of more than 1.3 million registered voters' Social Security numbers by the Chicago Board of Elections. Excerpts are below.
--------
Lead plaintiff in the suit is 43rd Ward aldermanic candidate Peter Zelchenko, who discovered the security breach and who also uncovered a similar problem last October on the board's Web site. The most recent release of at least 100 compact discs to alderman and ward committeemen, with another six discs unaccounted for, was revealed on Monday in the Sun-Times.
The suit, filed by attorney Nicholas Kefalos, alleges the board violated the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act and seeks unspecified compensation for all Chicago voters whose Social Security numbers were disclosed.
"Actual damages could be $50 or $100 for each person to at least establish a credit watch," Kefalos said.
The CDs also included birth dates, phone numbers and addresses.
"You couldn't have come up with a better threat for identity fraud if you had orchestrated it," Zelchenko said.
But board spokesman Tom Leach said most of the CDs were distributed three years ago, and that since then there has been "absolutely no evidence" of identity theft.
"We don't want the message to get out that there should be panic in the streets," Leach said.
The board is attempting to retrieve the discs.
Though required by law to notify voters of the breach, Leach said the board will not do so individually, but will instead advertise.
So, right now, voters have no way of knowing whether their information was exposed.
But since the board stopped collecting full Social Security numbers about three years ago, those who registered earlier are at greater risk.
Kefalos said that people who register with Zelchenko's Web site, Re4m.org, will be notified if their Social Security numbers were exposed as soon as the courts give permission.
--------
Lead plaintiff in the suit is 43rd Ward aldermanic candidate Peter Zelchenko, who discovered the security breach and who also uncovered a similar problem last October on the board's Web site. The most recent release of at least 100 compact discs to alderman and ward committeemen, with another six discs unaccounted for, was revealed on Monday in the Sun-Times.
The suit, filed by attorney Nicholas Kefalos, alleges the board violated the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act and seeks unspecified compensation for all Chicago voters whose Social Security numbers were disclosed.
"Actual damages could be $50 or $100 for each person to at least establish a credit watch," Kefalos said.
The CDs also included birth dates, phone numbers and addresses.
"You couldn't have come up with a better threat for identity fraud if you had orchestrated it," Zelchenko said.
But board spokesman Tom Leach said most of the CDs were distributed three years ago, and that since then there has been "absolutely no evidence" of identity theft.
"We don't want the message to get out that there should be panic in the streets," Leach said.
The board is attempting to retrieve the discs.
Though required by law to notify voters of the breach, Leach said the board will not do so individually, but will instead advertise.
So, right now, voters have no way of knowing whether their information was exposed.
But since the board stopped collecting full Social Security numbers about three years ago, those who registered earlier are at greater risk.
Kefalos said that people who register with Zelchenko's Web site, Re4m.org, will be notified if their Social Security numbers were exposed as soon as the courts give permission.
Monday, January 8, 2007
Debra Bowen Sworn in as California's 30th Secretary of State
Today, Debra Bowen was inaugurated as California's Secretary of State. According to her office's news release, she is only the sixth woman elected to statewide office in California.
Delaine Eastin, who served with Secretary of State Bowen in the Legislature for many years and was the fifth woman elected to statewide office, was the "mistress of ceremonies" for the inaugural event, which took place this afternoon in the Secretary of State's auditorium in Sacramento. The inauguration was attended by several hundred people, including statewide officeholders, past and present California lawmakers election verification activists, past and present agency staff, a few registrars of voters, and lobbyists.
Secretary of State Bowen spoke quite a bit about transparency during her speech, and about having an "open process" in her office. She said she wants to eliminate the use of private, invisible, proprietary software that prohibits the public from seeing what's counting our votes. She also stated that Kevin Shelley was right about a lot of things, which brought cheers from the activists in the room.
She said, "We choose our own futures through voting and participation," and said she will work to rebuild people's faith in the integrity of the electoral system.
Secretary Bowen has also changed the address of the Secretary of State's web site -- the official address is now www.sos.ca.gov (though the old address still works, too.)
Delaine Eastin, who served with Secretary of State Bowen in the Legislature for many years and was the fifth woman elected to statewide office, was the "mistress of ceremonies" for the inaugural event, which took place this afternoon in the Secretary of State's auditorium in Sacramento. The inauguration was attended by several hundred people, including statewide officeholders, past and present California lawmakers election verification activists, past and present agency staff, a few registrars of voters, and lobbyists.
Secretary of State Bowen spoke quite a bit about transparency during her speech, and about having an "open process" in her office. She said she wants to eliminate the use of private, invisible, proprietary software that prohibits the public from seeing what's counting our votes. She also stated that Kevin Shelley was right about a lot of things, which brought cheers from the activists in the room.
She said, "We choose our own futures through voting and participation," and said she will work to rebuild people's faith in the integrity of the electoral system.
Secretary Bowen has also changed the address of the Secretary of State's web site -- the official address is now www.sos.ca.gov (though the old address still works, too.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
