Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News, Thursday 2/2/06

[Wilms]

Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News

All members welcome and encouraged to participate.



Please post Election Reform, Fraud, & Related News on this thread.

If you can:

1. Post stories and announcements you find on the web.

2. Post stories using the new Spring 2006 Edition of "Election Fraud and Reform News Directory" listed here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x407240

3. Re-post stories and announcements you find on DU, providing a link to the original thread with thanks to the Original Poster, too.

4. Start a discussion thread by re-posting a story you see on this thread.

Please "Recommend" for the Greatest Page (it's the link just below).

[Wilms]

1. AZ: FBI seizes ballots in close '04 legislative race

FBI seizes ballots in close '04 legislative race

Casey Newton
The Arizona Republic

Feb. 1, 2006

Federal authorities seized ballots cast in a 2004 Republican primary on Wednesday, a move that could put to rest a long-running dispute over who won the race.

FBI agents met with staff members from the Maricopa County Treasurer's Office in the afternoon to take control over the ballots, which have been stored in a secure air-conditioned facility near Sky Harbor International Airport.

At issue is the outcome of the close race between John McComish and Anton Orlich. McComish prevailed after an automatic recount found nearly 500 new votes, reversing the initial outcome.

snip

Ever since, Orlich and his supporters have questioned how so many new votes appeared during the recount. After reviewing the voting machines used in the election, Douglas Jones, a University of Iowa computer scientist, said he could not rule out the possibility of fraud unless he examined the ballots to determine whether there had been tampering.

snip

http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/0201recount01-ON.html


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x411687

[Wilms]

2. AZ: FBI Subpoenas Ballots from Contentious 2004 Republican Primary

2/1/2006

FBI Subpoenas Ballots from Contentious 2004 Arizona Republican Primary Election!

Expert Report Said Tabulating Machines Were 'Improperly Calibrated', But Only Examination of Ballots Can Explain Mysterious Appearance of 439 Ballots During Recount of LD20 Race!

Guest Blogged by John Gideon

As we reported in January the Maricopa County, AZ elections officials and county attorney have done all they can do to keep anyone from looking at the ballots from the Nov. 2004 District 20 race. As you may recall, the matter came into question after a recount in a Republican Primary race revealed 439 ballots magically appearing and which resulted in the final results of the election being changed. The county has even gone to the lengths of refusing subpoenas from a State Senate committee to provide the ballots, even after an expert was brought in to examine the voting machinery and found the optical scan counters completely out of calibration. The expert said that examination of the ballots was the only way to determine what had actually happened.

Today The Arizona Republic announced that the FBI has now stepped in and provided a court ordered subpoena for those ballots.

snip

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002361.htm


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x411687

[Wilms]

3. AZ: Agency chief, 34, to run for secretary of state

Agency chief, 34, to run for secretary of state

Casey Newton
The Arizona Republic

Feb. 1, 2006 12:00 AM

Pledging to bring new reforms to the office, a member of Gov. Janet Napolitano's Cabinet has announced plans to run for secretary of state.

Israel G. Torres filed paperwork Monday after resigning his post as director of the Registrar of Contractors. He had been director since 2003.

The 34-year-old Democrat will face former state representative and Tucson city Councilman Bruce Wheeler in the September primary.

snip

Election issues look to figure largely in the campaign. This year will bring the implementation of controversial Proposition 200 voting standards. Brewer has also faced criticism for buying Diebold voting machines, which some activists have called unreliable.

snip

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0201torres-0201.html

[Wilms]

4. AZ: Initiative: Check voting machines

Initiative: Check voting machines

By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona

02.01.2006

PHOENIX — A self-described grass-roots organization wants to force a sample manual count of ballots cast with electronic voting machines to ensure they are recording votes accurately.

Arizona Citizens for Election Reform has filed the necessary papers to begin circulating petitions to put the issue on the November ballot. The group has until July 6 to get 122,612 valid signatures. But Kevin Tyne, deputy secretary of state, said the measure is unnecessary and would be a step backward. He said all the research shows machines are more accurate than hand-counted ballots.

snip

One provision of the initiative would require all machines to produce a paper receipt people can review to make sure their vote was recorded properly. Tyne said that's already a requirement for the touch-screen machines the state is buying for use by the visually handicapped. Most other machines use paper ballots marked by individuals, which are fed into optical scanners.
The proposal also would require that a sample number of electronic votes be compared with paper ballots. If the difference in count at any polling places is more than four, a full hand count would be required. Silverston said that would ensure the machines are accurate.

snip

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/113918

[Wilms]

5. MD: Paper trail for '06 voting impossible, panel told

Paper trail for '06 voting impossible, panel told

Lack of time, logistical issues cited; Diebold devices' reliability questioned

By Tom Stuckey
The Associated Press

February 1, 2006

ANNAPOLIS // The state does not have time before the 2006 elections to equip electronic voting machines with printers that make a paper record so voters can confirm that their ballots were recorded accurately, Maryland lawmakers were told today.

"I don't see how it would be possible," Donald Norris, professor of public policy at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, said during a hearing on the machines before the House Ways and Means Committee.

Norris directed a study commissioned by the State Board of Elections to look into the possibility of adding equipment to the Diebold touchscreen machines to provide a paper trail.

The university was asked to test seven systems that could be added to machines, but only four manufacturers provided machines for the study.

snip

The Ways and Means Committee is considering legislation to require a paper trail that will assure Marylanders their votes are recorded accurately and allow for recounts in contested elections.

Del. Sheila Hixson, D-Montgomery, chairwoman of the committee and sponsor of one of the bills, said the panel will continue to look at options for a verifiable voting system despite the conclusions of the Norris report.

"It won't stop us from going forward," she said.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-voting0102,1,6196224.story?coll=bal-local-headlines

[Wilms]

6. MD: Hearing Scheduled For Paper Trail Bill

Maryland: Hearing Scheduled For Paper Trail Bill

By Warren Stewart, Director of Legislative Issues and Policy, VoteTrustUSA

January 28, 2006

Maryland house Delegate Sheila E. Hixson (D-Montgomery), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has introduced HB 244, a bill that would require all votings systems used in the state to produce or require the use of a voter verified paper record. The bill also calls for hand counted audits of a percentage of the votes by each election board in the state. the bill has been schedule for next Wednesday.

"Under this legislation, voters would be able to check and correct any error made by the voting system," said Del. Hixson (photo at left), was quoted in the Washington Post. "We must pass this bill so the trust and confidence of voters who are concerned about our new system can be restored." The bill is supported by House Speaker Michael E. Busch (D-Anne Arundel) and several other leading House Democrats. A Senate companion bill is expected next week.

State Elections Administrator Linda Lamone, an ardent proponent of paperless voting in the past, has begun to question the the vulnerability of the state's Diebold touchscreen machines. Lamone wrote to Diebold's top executive on December 23 after California's Secretary of State declared that some of that state's voting machines were susceptible to error and would not be certified for use.

The State Board of Elections currently has two studies underway to examine the reliability and security problems with the voting machines as well as several 'vote verification' product proto-types. But - with the exception of a paper ballot - these prototypes would not solve the problem. Further, they are in the earliest stages of development, and are not yet capable of being attached to our current voting equipment. Therefore it would not be possible to implement them before the 2006 elections. A secure, reliable paper ballot and audit trail could be implemented this year, and it is also the most cost-effective solution.

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=848&Itemid=113

[Wilms]

7. CA: Bowen Announces Hearing Dates To Examine The "Open Source Voting"

Bowen Announces Hearing Dates To Examine The "Open Source Voting" Concept And How Voting Equipment Is Certified For Use

2006/01/27

SACRAMENTO – Questions about whether California should move toward using electronic voting systems that rely on “open source software” and how exactly voting systems are tested and certified for use will be the subject of two hearings scheduled today by Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), the chairwoman of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee.

“If we want people to have confidence that their votes are being counted accurately, the process we use to certify machines for use in this state and the systems themselves need to be open, accessible, and completely transparent,” said Bowen, a long-time open government advocate and the author of the 1993 measure that put all of the Legislature’s bills, analyses, and voting records on the Internet. “Nationwide, only 48% of the people are confident their votes are actually being counted correctly or being counted at all and you don’t build confidence in our electoral system by leaving people in the dark. To restore people’s faith in the system and ensure ballots are tallied accurately, we need to turn on the lights and let people see the nuts and bolts of how the technology works and how it’s tested for accuracy.”

The first hearing on February 8th will focus on the open source software issue. “Open source software” has been around for several decades, but it’s become more popular in recent years. Some of the more well-known names in the open source software world are Firefox (an Internet browser), Linux (an operating system), and Red Hat (which sells and supports a version of Linux for businesses). Witnesses will include experts on the benefits and shortcomings of open source software in general, businesses and government agencies that rely on open source software, experts on the challenges of using open source software in an electoral setting, and voting machine vendors. The hearing will be in Room 112 at the State Capitol and will begin at 9:00 a.m.

“We’ve worked hard to make elections more transparent over the years by, for example, making it easier for voters to track campaign contributions, but when it comes to the fundamental issue of how the accuracy of the election results are ensured, voters are left completely in the dark,” continued Bowen. “We’re in the middle of an intense discussion over whether Diebold’s voting machines should be re-certified for use here in California for the 2006 elections. I want to look further ahead at what alternatives there are to relying on proprietary software that can’t be examined and has turned out to be fatally flawed.”

The second hearing on February 16th will look at the process of how exactly voting systems are certified for use in California. Witnesses will discuss how the process works, what roles the Elections Assistance Commission, the Independent Testing Authorities (ITA), the voting machine vendors, and the state play in the process – and about what the flaws are in the current system. The hearing will be held in the Menlo Park City Council Chambers at 1:00 p.m. The following day, researchers from around the U.S. who are studying voting technology as part of ACCURATE (A Center for Correct, Usable, Reliable, Auditable, and Transparent Elections) will be meeting in Menlo Park, led by nationally-recognized Johns Hopkins University Professor Avi Rubin. Last year, ACCURATE received a $7.5 million grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to study how to design and build secure and reliable voting systems. The group will also investigate ways to improve the process for testing and certifying voting machines.

“The federal testing process is notoriously weak and it’s done in secret,” continued Bowen. “These supposedly ‘independent testing authorities’ are not only paid for by the voting machine industry, but they also conduct their tests behind closed doors. We need to do away with the secrecy and the ‘Trust us, we know what we’re doing’ approach the voting machine vendors and the Secretary of State are taking with this issue, because California voters deserve a process that’s as open and transparent as possible.”

Contact: Evan Goldberg [phone]

http://democrats.sen.ca.gov/templates/SDCTemplate.asp?a=4865&z=69&cp=PressRelease&pg=article&fpg=senpressreleases&sln=Bowen&sdn=28


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x411646

[Wilms]

8. GA SoS CATHY COX: THE NEW FACE OF SOUTHERN RESISTANCE

GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE CATHY COX:

THE NEW FACE OF SOUTHERN RESISTANCE

by Bradley E. Heard

Copyright © 2006 Bradley E. Heard. All Rights Reserved.

Permission to Republish: This article may be freely republished, distributed, and/or posted, electronically or in print, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety, along with the included copyright notice and author credits. Although not required, the author requests that you send him a note if you decide to u se this article. Please include your name, email address, telephone number, and a link to the article and/or website. To obtain permission to publish only portions of the article or for other questions, please contact the author at [e-mail] or [phone].


ATLANTA, GA — January 31, 2006. Every year, on the federal holiday celebrating the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I try to tune into the annual television coverage of the King Day Ecumenical Service at Atlanta’s historic Ebenezer Baptist Church. This year, as in years past, I saw the usual parade of Georgia public officials in the audience. Among those officials was Georgia’s Secretary of State, Cathy Cox — smiling and swaying, singing Lift Ev’ry Voice and Sing (the “Negro National Anthem”) by memory.

That’s not so surprising. After all, Secretary Cox is a statewide elected public official, and a Democrat. African-Americans are a very important constituency to any Southern Democrat.

What might be surprising to many black Georgians, though, is what Secretary Cox did two days later, when the cameras weren’t rolling. That Wednesday, in an obscure conference room on the second floor of a little-known state education building, Secretary Cox cast the tiebreaking vote on the Republican-controlled State Election Board that she chairs, to ask the Legislature to appropriate a whopping $2.5 million of taxpayer funds so that the State of Georgia could continue to defend its recently-enacted Voter ID law — a law that a federal judge recently equated to a Jim Crow-era poll tax.

Confused? Perplexed? Don’t be. This is the way of the New Southern Resistance movement. And Cathy Cox is the face of that new movement.

In the New Southern Resistance movement, a politician says one thing in public, to placate her political base, and then says something else behind closed doors, to curry favor with the power brokers and the swing constituencies. But the goal always remains the same: preserve the status quo, extol the notion of “States’ Rights,” and resist the “outside agitating” influence of federal laws that seek to secure the rights of the least, the last, and the lost in society. And by all means, protect yourself!

And so it has been for Ms. Cox during her two terms as Secretary of State. She has seemingly mastered the art of saying one thing to groups interested in preserving and protecting the voting rights of Georgia’s most disadvantaged citizens (such as the League of Women Voters, the Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, AARP, and Concerned Black Clergy), while steadily taking official actions that completely forswear her public statements to those groups.


Double-Talk on Voter ID

A perfect example of this pattern is Secretary Cox’s handling of the Voter ID issue. A few days ago, the Republican-controlled Legislature passed a re-tweaked version of the Voter ID law that a federal court had enjoined last October. The judge ruled that the earlier version of that law likely violated several provisions of the U.S. Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act. In statement after statement, when the Voter ID bill was being debated in the Legislature last year, Secretary Cox expressed fierce opposition to the measure. In a five-page letter, she urged Republican Governor Sonny Perdue to veto the bill, stating that it was unconstitutional, illegal, and unnecessary, and that it imposed a significant burden on the fundamental right of many of Georgia’s citizens to vote. She predicted that the passage of the bill would spur untold legal challenges and would bring “unnecessary cost and embarrassment to our state.” She was right, of course.

Given her stated opposition to the Voter ID law, why on earth would Secretary Cox cast the decisive vote to request $2.5 million of Georgians’ hard-earned money to defend the law? The answer is simple: she gains political favor with the “old guard” and the swing voters by doing so. At the same time, she is able to rely on her previous public statements in opposition to the bill as political cover with her base. State Senator Gloria Butler (D-DeKalb Co.) characterized Secretary Cox’s recent vote as a “betrayal . . . against every poor, minority, and elderly voter in the state.” Senator Butler is right.

Certainly it is true that, as Secretary of State and the chief election official responsible for enforcing Georgia’s election laws, Ms. Cox was required to defend the law (at least officially) during the initial court challenge. That initial challenge has already cost taxpayers $186,500 in legal fees, not including the fees that the state will owe to the prevailing plaintiffs. Now that the law has been ruled by a court of competent jurisdiction to be presumptively unconstitutional, as Secretary Cox herself argued that it was, there was absolutely no need for her to defend the law any further. But Secretary Cox chose to do so anyhow — and that is a choice that should concern many who consider her to be their friend and political ally.

Opposition to Private Voter Registration Groups

The Voter ID case is hardly the first time that Secretary Cox has found herself on the wrong side of voting rights issues. During her two terms as Georgia’s chief election official, Ms. Cox has frequently and zealously supported and defended statewide voting practices that federal courts have declared to be illegal or unconstitutional. Many of these practices were created solely by her office, and they often have the effect of disenfranchising eligible voters even before they can get on the voter rolls.

I have come to know Secretary Cox’s modus operandi all too well during the course of my representation of a small African-American non-profit charitable foundation in a voting rights case against her office. That case arose out of Secretary Cox’s rejection of several voter registration applications that the foundation had collected during a voter registration drive in predominantly African-American South DeKalb County. Secretary Cox contended that my client did not collect the applications in accordance with her office’s restrictive procedures, which essentially prohibited private, non-deputized individuals from collecting and submitting applications.

In July 2004, a federal judge issued an injunction against Secretary Cox, ruling that her policies violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The judge ordered Secretary Cox’s office immediately to begin accepting voter registration applications submitted by private voter registration volunteers. True to form, instead of modifying her office’s procedures to comply with the judge’s order, Secretary Cox appealed the ruling. The trial judge’s decision was unanimously upheld in May 2005 by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Still, Secretary Cox was not satisfied. She appealed the ruling again, this time to the entire Eleventh Circuit appellate court. Once again, her appeal was resoundingly rejected. Four federal judges have now ruled that Secretary Cox’s policy of not allowing private groups to assist with registering voters was illegal, and eleven other federal judges have refused to reconsider her appeal on that issue. Yet, Secretary Cox continues to this day to contest this issue in the courts — at taxpayer expense — all the while assuring her supporters that she is merely “protecting the process.” Call it Southern Resistance with a smile.

Contempt for the Federal Courts

In protest of the federal courts’ orders in the NVRA voter registration case, Secretary Cox persuaded the State Election Board to enact draconian new regulations that would effectively prohibit private groups from being able to offer effective voter registration assistance in the poor, minority, and elderly communities that they primarily serve. The new regulations impose three new changes:

* First, the regulations require voter registration applications to be sealed before being
handed to private volunteers. This makes it all but impossible for voting rights groups
to maintain contact with the people they assist with voter registration. Studies show
that following up with newly-registered voters, to encourage them to vote and remind
them of the importance of voting, significantly increases the likelihood that they will
actually show up to the polls on election day. That, after all, is the ultimate goal of any
effective civic participation campaign.

* Next, the regulations prohibit the photocopying of completed voter registration forms.
This means that neither the applicants nor the registration drive organizers will have
a way of verifying that the applications they completed and submitted were actually
received and processed by election officials. (That’s kind of like asking someone to cast
a ballot on some mysterious Diebold electronic voting machine, without giving them a
verifiable paper receipt. But wait... Secretary Cox was in favor of that too, wasn’t she?)

* Finally, the regulations impose a 72-hour deadline on private groups to return
applications, whereas the NVRA gives other state agencies like motor vehicle bureaus
a 10-day window to return the same types of applications. This quick turn-around
period creates a heavy disincentive for private groups to conduct voter registration
drives, particularly when they are short-staffed, or if they don’t meet daily. But, maybe
that’s the point of these regulations.

Again, Secretary Cox will reassuringly tell her supporters that these measures are needed to “protect the process” against voter registration fraud, untimely submission of applications, or poorly trained volunteers. However, much like the Republican legislators in the Voter ID debate, Ms. Cox has very little evidence of actual voter registration fraud to back up her claims. The relatively small number of fraudulent or late-submitted applications that are invariably received from a few unscrupulous or negligent third parties pales in comparison to the number of legitimate applications that derive from reputable and conscientious thirdparty voter registration groups.

Also, like her Republican friends in the Legislature, Secretary Cox flatly refuses to consider less intrusive and more effective means of guarding against voter registration fraud and inefficiency by third party registration organizations. Instead of imposing a bunch of new restrictions on well-intentioned, civic minded voter registration volunteers, why not assist them in their worthy activity by providing training and information to them? To guard against fraud and ensure accountability, why not require volunteers who collect and submit applications to identify themselves and provide appropriate contact information to applicants and election officials? And instead of hamstringing private voter registration groups with a 72-hour turn-around deadline, why not give them the same 10-day window that is given to other designated voter registration agencies? Wouldn’t the $2.5 million in taxpayer funds that Secretary Cox has requested from the Legislature to defend an admittedly unconstitutional and discriminatory Voter ID law be better spent on funding these reform initiatives?

A Call to Conscience

Secretary Cox’s fervor in defending Georgia’s election laws and her own unsavory election policies at all costs — even after they have been specifically ruled to be in violation of federal law — goes well beyond the duty of an executive branch official to enforce and faithfully execute the laws. It reflects a degree of stubbornness and insensitivity to the plight of disadvantaged citizens that is frankly startling for a public official who professes to be a friend to such communities. After all, one of Secretary Cox’s duties as an elected state official is to support the Constitution of the United States, which recognizes that federal law is the supreme law of the land, even when state laws and regulations run contrary to it. This concept is particularly apposite in the area of federal voting rights, and many people have fought, marched, lobbied, suffered, and died to make sure that those rights are secured. Equally as troubling is Secretary Cox’s pattern of double-talk around these issues. While she has maintained a very frequent and welcome presence among minority and women’s groups, civil rights groups, retiree groups, and the like, her actual record has been woefully inadequate when it comes to securing, protecting, and enhancing the franchise rights of Georgia’s most vulnerable citizens.

Those who consider themselves friends of Secretary Cox should urge her to defect from the ranks of the New Southern Resistance movement. And Secretary Cox should learn to stop talking out of both sides of her mouth when it comes to her support of voting rights.


About the Author: Bradley E. Heard is an attorney in private practice in Atlanta, Georgia. He holds a B.A. in Political Science from Morehouse College in Atlanta, where he graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa. Mr. Heard earned his J.D. from the Yale Law School in New Haven, Connecticut, where he served as managing edito r of the Yale Law & Policy Review. The opinions reflected in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his clients, his law firm, or any other entity with which he is affiliated.

[Wilms]

9. GA: Senator proposes paper ballot voting legislation

Senator proposes paper ballot voting legislation

By Doug Gross
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Feb. 02, 2006

ATLANTA - A state senator running for Georgia's top elections post introduced a bill Wednesday that would test adding paper receipts to the state's electronic voting machines.

Sen. Bill Stephens, R-Canton, said adding a physical ballot would give voters more assurance that their ballots have been counted accurately.

"Our voting system is the foundation of our democracy and the men and women in this state deserve to know that the system is safe and secure," said Stephens, the Senate's former majority leader and a candidate for Secretary of State.

Under the plan, one precinct each in Bibb, Camden and Cobb counties would be outfitted with the paper balloting for November's general election. If all went well, the state could add the receipts to all of its voting machines by the 2008 presidential election - depending on what new federal voting laws are handed down, Stephens said.

Under current Secretary of State Cathy Cox, Georgia switched to an all-electronic voting system in 2002 in the aftermath of the Florida presidential election, which delayed for weeks the outcome of the 2000 presidential election.

snip

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/13769690.htm

[Wilms]

10. VA: Demand Verifiable Elections - Support HB 1243 and SB 424

Election Integrity Action Center
Demand Verifiable Elections in Virginia - Support HB 1243 and SB 424

Virginia Verified Voting and The New Electoral Reform Alliance for Virginia have joined VoteTrustUSA in an action alert to demand verfiable elections in Virginia.

Urge your Delegate to support HB 1243 and your Senator to support SB 424!

Please provide the requested information and the following email will automatically be sent to your Delegate and Senator.

http://www.congressweb.com/cweb4/index.cfm?orgcode=VTUSA&hotissue=5

[Wilms]

11. WI: Vote-PAD Assistive Device Approved

Wisconsin Approves the Vote-PAD Assistive Device

By Vote-PAD Press Release

January 31, 2006

Port Ludlow, WA - Vote-PAD, Inc. is proud to announce that the Vote-PAD (Voting-on-Paper Assistive Device) has been approved by the Wisconsin State Elections Board for use in hand-counted paper ballot municipalities.

After meeting with U.S. Department of Justice attorneys, Kevin Kennedy, Executive Director of the Wisconsin State Elections Board, announced the state’s approval of the Vote-PAD. Mr. Kennedy said the attorneys spent considerable time looking at the device and asking questions about its use in the voting process. It was indicated, he said, “that they did not see anything that should stop Wisconsin from proceeding with approval.”

The Vote-PAD is an inexpensive, non-computerized, voter-assist device that helps people with visual or dexterity impairments to independently and privately mark the same paper ballot as other voters. The Vote-PAD was developed to help small towns and counties comply with the accessibility requirement of the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002. It allows them to continue administering elections the same way they have in the past.

Ellen Theisen, President of Vote-PAD, Inc. and developer of the device, said, “We are delighted! One of our immediate goals was to offer the small Wisconsin municipalities a low cost, low tech, reasonable alternative to electronic voting. This approval is a real win for the small communities and for the state of Wisconsin.”

snip

http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=862&Itemid=51


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x411665

[Wilms]

12. Think paper trails will make elections secure? It’s not that simple

This article starts by dismissing fears about e-voting, but turns around and concludes as follows.


Nieman Watchdog

Think paper trails will make elections secure? It’s not that simple

ASK THIS | February 01, 2006

by Roy Saltman

snip

There are important conclusions to be drawn. First, there is a need to be able to recount some fraction of all ballots manually, regardless of the closeness of the reported outcome. Sancho’s system summarizes the votes that voters record on computer-readable marksense ballots. According to Sancho, Florida’s current law does not permit the recounting of ballots supposedly read and counted correctly by computers. This law is a real danger to democracy since, if the computer program is incorrect, the correct results will not be reported. California requires a 1% manual recount of all computer-readable ballots, a law that has been in effect for many years. This procedure, proposed in a published report in 1975 by this author, is absolutely necessary for public confidence in computer-generated results.

A second conclusion that might be drawn is the effect of this experiment on the use of non-ballot, direct recording voting systems. In those cases, there are no ballots that may be manually recounted. The possibility of insider vote-results manipulation increases the pressure to assure a secondary method of vote-counting, not possible with a non-ballot voting system. A mitigating factor is that there are separate voting-counting units in every precinct. In order to report wrong results and get away with it, a manipulator would have to change the results from every single vote counting machine, or else the individual unit results would not add to match the summary.

A third conclusion that may be drawn is that the process of assessment of vulnerabilities to voting systems is not being carried out with sufficient detail. The current set of established procedures, in which a Voting Systems Testing laboratory tests hardware and software before a system is actually used for voting, may need to include tests of security in greater depth than is being done now. Such a set of tests is difficult to carry out without the cooperation of the vendors, who know the inner details of their own systems.

snip

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00166

[Wilms]

13. THE HISTORY AND POLITICS OF VOTING TECHNOLOGY

THE HISTORY AND POLITICS OF VOTING TECHNOLOGY
In Quest of Integrity and Public Confidence

Roy G. Saltman

From Palgrave Macmillan
Pub date: Jan 2006

(1-4039-6392-4)

Description
Roy G. Saltman traces the evolution of voting technology, highlighting how the antiquated systems in use today are a legacy of the industrial revolution and the early computer revolution of the 1950s. He also examines the tangled responsibilities of federal, state, and local authorities in facilitating, monitoring, and counting the votes, creating a disturbing picture of this elemental civic duty.

Author Bio
Roy G. Saltman is an independent consultant in election policy and technology and did his initial work in his field at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, formerly called the National Bureau of Standards.

Table of contents
The 2000 Presidential Election in Florida: The Family Secret is Exposed * From the Revolution to the Civil War: Consent of the Governed and the Election Clause * The Late 19th Century: Struggling with Corruption and Fraud * The Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries: Mechanization and Political Reforms * The Middle and Late 19th Centuries: Movements for Equality, Enfranchisement, and Voting Facilitation * The Middle and Late 20th Century: Election Administration and Computing Technology * The Great Awakening After Florida: Through July 2005

http://www.palgrave-usa.com/catalog/product.aspx?isbn=1403963924&printer=yes&

[autorank]

19. Roy G. Saltman -- Nat. Bureau of Standards 1988--A Prophet

Every election activist should have this as a link. It demonstrates clearly that the problems with electronic voting today were identified 17 years ago!!! Saltman was the author of this NBS report.

NBS (National Bureau of Standards) Special Publication 500-158

Accuracy, Integrity, and Security in

Computerized Vote-Tallying

Roy G. Saltman

1988

http://www.itl.nist.gov/lab/specpubs/500-158.htm

[Algorem]

14. OH- Petro drops appeal of election lawsuit

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1138873474253690.xml&coll=

Thursday, February 02, 2006
Bill Sloat
Plain Dealer Reporter

Cincinnati - A federal court dismissed a lawsuit left over from foulups in Ohio on Election Day 2004 in a ruling that came after Attorney General Jim Petro's office missed a deadline for filing its written legal brief.

Petro's office sought this week's dismissal order from the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, ending further conflict with Ohio Democratic Party lawyers, who already had asked that the case be tossed because the paperwork came in late.

"They filed their brief late, then they withdrew their appeal," said Kathleen Trafford, a Democratic lawyer. "We had been having some discussions to bring this to an end."

Mark Anthony, a spokesman for the attorney general's office, said he did not know why Petro moved to have the case dismissed. "I can't get into the status of the case right now," Anthony said...

[MelissaB]

17. discussion

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x411724

[Algorem]

15. OH-Election law opponents may try to get voters to repeal measure

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060202/NEWS09/602020378/-1/NEWS

Article published Thursday, February 2, 2006

Some provisions take effect with Ohio's May 2 primary

By JIM PROVANCE
BLADE COLUMBUS BUREAU


COLUMBUS - The ink from Gov. Bob Taft's pen barely dry, opponents to Ohio's controversial new elections law are pondering whether to launch an effort to ask voters to repeal it.

"There's been a lot of discussion within all activist groups about what the next step should be," said Peg Rosenfield, spokesman for the League of Women Voters of Ohio. "Should there be a referendum or a court challenge or what?"

The Ohio House and Senate voted 57-40 and 21-12 respectively Tuesday to send Mr. Taft the final version of the bill, which, among numerous other things, requires voters to show some form of identification. The bills passed solely on the backs of Republicans...

Cliff Arnebeck, attorney with Alliance for Democracy, said a repeal petition effort would need $250,000 on the table before it starts gathering the 193,740 signatures needed before the 90 days are up. That's the equivalent of 6 percent of the votes cast in the 2002 gubernatorial election...

RECENT RELATED ARTICLES


• New law requires Ohio voters to show identification at polls | 02/01/2006
• Ohio lawmakers consider ballot issue for redrawing districts | 01/20/2006
• State legislators try to iron out election-reform bill | 01/18/2006
• $9.4 million spent on bid to reform elections in Ohio | 12/17/2005
• Ohio election bill hits roadblock | 12/15/2005
• Ohio Senate approves voter ID bill | 12/14/2005
• GOP takes up cause of election reform | 12/11/2005
• The reasons behind low voter turnout | 12/08/2005
• Democrats boycott vote to forward revised plan | 12/08/2005
• Ohio lawmakers urged to go slow on election reform | 12/07/2005
• Voters may have to show ID in Ohio | 12/06/2005
• Please, apathetic citizens, forget about voting | 12/03/2005
• U.S. judge declines to dismiss lawsuit | 12/03/2005
• Session on voter woes won't be moved | 11/16/2005
• Ohioans cast off election reforms | 11/09/2005
More related articles »

[Wilms]

16. CA: Most e-vote systems should be up to snuff by June (Diebold on hold)

Most e-vote systems should be up to snuff by June

Diebold has national hurdle to clear before state approves

By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER

After months of anxiety, California elections officials learned Wednesday that nearly a half-dozen voting systems could be ready for purchase and use in the June primary.

snip

Only Diebold Election Systems Inc., which has struggled for more than two years for California approval, was still in national testing Wednesday for its new flagship voting system. But state elections officials said Diebold still could clear that final hurdle and supply voting equipment to nearly a third of California counties, including Alameda, San Joaquin and Marin.

snip

A Huntsville, Ala., lab still is performing that examination. If it finds the vulnerabilities are limited and can be addressed by tighter physical security over voting-machine components, California officials could approve Diebold's latest touch-screen and optical-scanning machines in as little as two weeks, in part because the system already has been through state examination and public hearings.

All the other voting systems and makers — Hart InterCivic, Election Systems & Software, Sequoia Voting Systems and Populex — still face state scrutiny plus a barrage of public hearings in the first two weeks of March.

snip

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_3467746


Discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x411712

[autorank]

18. NY: Upstate GaGa Over "Invisible Ballots" Premier

http://www.oneidadispatch.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16054718&BRD=1709&PAG=461&dept_id=68844&rfi=6

Film challenges electronic voting
By ANDREW BROWN, Dispatch Staff Writer
02/02/2006
email this storyEmail to a friendpost a commentPost a Commentprinter friendlyPrinter-friendly
ONEIDA - When the movie "Invisible Ballots: A Temptation for Electronic Vote Fraud" ended at the Kallet Civic Center Wednesday night, the petition sheets the screening's organizers had brought began to fill up.

The petitions ask elections commissioners from local counties to adopt the optical scan paper ballot voting machines when they choose a replacement for the state's lever machines later this year to comply with the 2002 federal Help America Vote Act.

A 2004 documentary, "Invisible Ballots" details the history of problems with the direct recording electronic voting machine, or DREs. Similar to an ATM machine, the DRE is a touch screen system that has been plagued by glitches and accusations of fraud since it was developed in the late 1990's, according to the film.

The DRE and the optical scan paper ballot - a system that calls for individuals to choose candidates by marking a piece of paper that is then run through an electronic counter - are the two basic machines being considered by elections commissioners across the state for replacing the lever voting machines later this year.

[Wilms]

20. .