VIP Letter to Secretary of State Cortes-Vasquez
17 November 2008
NYS Secretary of State Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez,
First Deputy Secretary of State Daniel Shapiro,
General Counsel Susan Watson,
New York State Department of State
99 Washington Avenue, 11th Floor
Albany, New York 12231
Secretary Cortes-Vazquez,
We recently learned of Governor Patterson’s directive for your department to assess the voting process in New York State. We hope to contribute to this effort.
The Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project has been active in the election integrity struggle for the past few years joining with the many other groups advocating for the paper ballot voting system for New York State.
We have enclosed three documents which reflect the current position of The Voting Integrity Project. These writings outline what we have identified as a significant structural problem of New York’s election administration and a suggestion for a partial mitigation of the fault.
We hope our contribution will be helpful in the fulfillment of the Governor’s directive. Please feel free to contact us should you require more information.
For the Voting Integrity Project,
Wayne Stinson, Coordinator
Enclosures: Voting Machine Position Statements, Citizen Advisory Board for Election Administration argument
DOSLtr11.17.08
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Citizen Advisory Board Proposed for Schoharie County
VIP Letter to Supervisor Brandow, Chairman of Board of Supervisors, Rules & Legislation Committee
The Voting Integrity Project
A public interest initiative of The Peacemakers of Schoharie County, Po Box 214, Cobleskill, NY 12043
13 October 2008
Supervisor Donald Brandow, Chairman
Rules & Legislation Committee
Dear Supervisor Brandow,
We are communicating with you today because of the Rules & Legislation Committee’s responsibility for Board of Elections oversight.
Enclosed you will find a document, “ Democracy in New York State Election Administration,” which outlines what we have observed to be a basic organizational weakness of New York’s election administration system.
You will please note the suggestion that the creation of a Citizen Advisory Board for Election Administration (CABEA) could mitigate some of the problems identified.
The Voting Integrity Project would like the opportunity to discuss this concept with the Rules & Legislation Committee. Ideally, members of your committee would contribute to the development of a proposal for consideration by the entire Board of Supervisors.
If the Rules & Legislative Committee recognizes merit in the concept of a Citizen Advisory Board for Election Administration the next step would be consultation with Board of Elections staff to identify possibilities and parameters for cooperation.
We are looking forward to discussing this proposal with you and your committee in the not too distant future, perhaps in mid-November following Election Day.
For the Voting Integrity Project,
Wayne R. Stinson, Coordinator
I can be reached at airhead@midtel.net or 518-287-1463.
Cc: Rules & Legislation Committee members
The Argument for Citizen Advisory Boards for Election Administration
Democracy in New York State Election Administration?
12 October 2008 Wayne R. Stinson, Coordinator, Voting Integrity Project
In New York State two private restricted membership organizations have been given exclusive responsibility for election administration. Both the state and local Boards of Elections are staffed with representatives of the two major partisan groups, the Republican and Democratic parties. These two organizations often behave quite undemocratically, and their continual combat to control ballot access is responsible for our extremely complex election law.
If the drafters of New York’s Election Law expected the two partisan organizations to represent all New York State citizens, they failed. The Boards of Elections, staffed only by loyal members of these two groups, do not, indeed can not, effectively represent the whole of their constituencies:
More than one quarter of eligible citizens are not registered to vote and therefore have no official partisan affiliation but they do have a stake in the effective administration of elections.
More than one-fifth of registered voters do not specify a party affiliation but they too have a stake in our elections.
A majority of registered voters who report a party affiliation do not strongly identify with that partisan group and are not active in partisan affairs but they do care how our elections are managed.
And, most significantly, voters reporting a minor party affiliation are not represented by the Democratic and Republican staff of the Boards of Elections but you can be sure they are intensely interested in how elections are administered.
Exacerbating this problem is the fact that these two major partisan organizations do not exist to make democracy happen. They are more about power and control than openness or sharing. We have often enough heard of ugly partisanship resulting in disenfranchisement of some voters or litigation to block ballot access. We must acknowledge that our present quasi-governmental election administration system actually delivers control of the election administration chicken coop to the partisan foxes.
New York’s Election Law assigns authority to administer elections to the state and local Boards of Elections. Consequently, the partisan Election Commissioners believe they are autonomous and they generally are not responsive to legislative bodies or the public. Boards of Elections, while theoretically under the fiscal oversight of a legislative body, are actually far beyond effective control because of the lawmakers’ political dependence upon or deference to the partisan leaders. So it seems quite unreasonable to expect lawmakers to provide true oversight or to effectively represent citizens with respect to election administration issues.
I believe we can agree that administration of our elections is properly a function of government, however, the existing Board of Elections system fails to serve government or our democracy. New York must reform its election administration system and that reform would best be accomplished by comprehensive study followed by the legislation necessary to produce truly non-partisan, independent and professional election administration.
For those of us not comfortable waiting for a complete revamp of the Election Law there are democracy enhancing initiatives which could be put in place now. Legislative bodies could choose to exercise control over election administration by asserting their budgetary prerogatives. Lawmakers might even flex their oversight muscles some while attempting to fulfill their fiscal responsibilities.
One initiative which could enhance legislators’ oversight efforts while at the same time helping to fulfill democracy’s need for transparency is the creation of Citizen Advisory Boards for Election Administration. A cursory internet search turns up 28,000 Citizen Advisory Boards. The examples I perused were government agencies or community-government cooperative projects. Obviously, a Citizen Advisory Board is not some wild way-out-there idea, it‘s been done again and again.
Such a board, composed of volunteers, appointed by the local legislative body, could serve the lawmakers by complementing their oversight duties. A Citizen Advisory Board could also somewhat insulate lawmakers from partisan pressure while at the same time assisting the Board of Elections with a variety of outreach services such as recruitment and training of poll workers.
Citizen Advisory Boards could be implemented under New York's existing system without amending election law as long as care is taken to avoid usurping Board of Elections or legislative authority. If such advisory boards are to be effective, however, enabling resolutions must make clear to all affected that the service and findings of the Citizen Advisory Board should be respected and adhered to whenever possible. Ideally, for statewide uniformity and effectiveness, the establishment of such boards, membership composition, responsibilities and authority should be delineated by state law.
Citizen Advisory Boards have the potential to bring elections back under the watchful eye of the citizens who need to understand and trust election outcomes. If care is taken to appoint only individuals who are truly representative of the community, and the board works diligently to maintain communication with the community, a Citizen Advisory Board will enjoy the respect of lawmakers, election officials and citizens alike.
The long term goal needs to be comprehensive reform of election administration but Citizen Advisory Boards can be a good start in our reform efforts. Partisan organizations serve an important organizational purpose for citizens who want to be involved in supporting candidates, however, partisan groups and their operatives should not continue administering our elections. With respect to our elections these groups and their individual operatives need to be restricted to candidate or observer status and nothing more.
The Voting Integrity Project
A public interest initiative of The Peacemakers of Schoharie County, Po Box 214, Cobleskill, NY 12043
13 October 2008
Supervisor Donald Brandow, Chairman
Rules & Legislation Committee
Dear Supervisor Brandow,
We are communicating with you today because of the Rules & Legislation Committee’s responsibility for Board of Elections oversight.
Enclosed you will find a document, “ Democracy in New York State Election Administration,” which outlines what we have observed to be a basic organizational weakness of New York’s election administration system.
You will please note the suggestion that the creation of a Citizen Advisory Board for Election Administration (CABEA) could mitigate some of the problems identified.
The Voting Integrity Project would like the opportunity to discuss this concept with the Rules & Legislation Committee. Ideally, members of your committee would contribute to the development of a proposal for consideration by the entire Board of Supervisors.
If the Rules & Legislative Committee recognizes merit in the concept of a Citizen Advisory Board for Election Administration the next step would be consultation with Board of Elections staff to identify possibilities and parameters for cooperation.
We are looking forward to discussing this proposal with you and your committee in the not too distant future, perhaps in mid-November following Election Day.
For the Voting Integrity Project,
Wayne R. Stinson, Coordinator
I can be reached at airhead@midtel.net or 518-287-1463.
Cc: Rules & Legislation Committee members
The Argument for Citizen Advisory Boards for Election Administration
Democracy in New York State Election Administration?
12 October 2008 Wayne R. Stinson, Coordinator, Voting Integrity Project
In New York State two private restricted membership organizations have been given exclusive responsibility for election administration. Both the state and local Boards of Elections are staffed with representatives of the two major partisan groups, the Republican and Democratic parties. These two organizations often behave quite undemocratically, and their continual combat to control ballot access is responsible for our extremely complex election law.
If the drafters of New York’s Election Law expected the two partisan organizations to represent all New York State citizens, they failed. The Boards of Elections, staffed only by loyal members of these two groups, do not, indeed can not, effectively represent the whole of their constituencies:
More than one quarter of eligible citizens are not registered to vote and therefore have no official partisan affiliation but they do have a stake in the effective administration of elections.
More than one-fifth of registered voters do not specify a party affiliation but they too have a stake in our elections.
A majority of registered voters who report a party affiliation do not strongly identify with that partisan group and are not active in partisan affairs but they do care how our elections are managed.
And, most significantly, voters reporting a minor party affiliation are not represented by the Democratic and Republican staff of the Boards of Elections but you can be sure they are intensely interested in how elections are administered.
Exacerbating this problem is the fact that these two major partisan organizations do not exist to make democracy happen. They are more about power and control than openness or sharing. We have often enough heard of ugly partisanship resulting in disenfranchisement of some voters or litigation to block ballot access. We must acknowledge that our present quasi-governmental election administration system actually delivers control of the election administration chicken coop to the partisan foxes.
New York’s Election Law assigns authority to administer elections to the state and local Boards of Elections. Consequently, the partisan Election Commissioners believe they are autonomous and they generally are not responsive to legislative bodies or the public. Boards of Elections, while theoretically under the fiscal oversight of a legislative body, are actually far beyond effective control because of the lawmakers’ political dependence upon or deference to the partisan leaders. So it seems quite unreasonable to expect lawmakers to provide true oversight or to effectively represent citizens with respect to election administration issues.
I believe we can agree that administration of our elections is properly a function of government, however, the existing Board of Elections system fails to serve government or our democracy. New York must reform its election administration system and that reform would best be accomplished by comprehensive study followed by the legislation necessary to produce truly non-partisan, independent and professional election administration.
For those of us not comfortable waiting for a complete revamp of the Election Law there are democracy enhancing initiatives which could be put in place now. Legislative bodies could choose to exercise control over election administration by asserting their budgetary prerogatives. Lawmakers might even flex their oversight muscles some while attempting to fulfill their fiscal responsibilities.
One initiative which could enhance legislators’ oversight efforts while at the same time helping to fulfill democracy’s need for transparency is the creation of Citizen Advisory Boards for Election Administration. A cursory internet search turns up 28,000 Citizen Advisory Boards. The examples I perused were government agencies or community-government cooperative projects. Obviously, a Citizen Advisory Board is not some wild way-out-there idea, it‘s been done again and again.
Such a board, composed of volunteers, appointed by the local legislative body, could serve the lawmakers by complementing their oversight duties. A Citizen Advisory Board could also somewhat insulate lawmakers from partisan pressure while at the same time assisting the Board of Elections with a variety of outreach services such as recruitment and training of poll workers.
Citizen Advisory Boards could be implemented under New York's existing system without amending election law as long as care is taken to avoid usurping Board of Elections or legislative authority. If such advisory boards are to be effective, however, enabling resolutions must make clear to all affected that the service and findings of the Citizen Advisory Board should be respected and adhered to whenever possible. Ideally, for statewide uniformity and effectiveness, the establishment of such boards, membership composition, responsibilities and authority should be delineated by state law.
Citizen Advisory Boards have the potential to bring elections back under the watchful eye of the citizens who need to understand and trust election outcomes. If care is taken to appoint only individuals who are truly representative of the community, and the board works diligently to maintain communication with the community, a Citizen Advisory Board will enjoy the respect of lawmakers, election officials and citizens alike.
The long term goal needs to be comprehensive reform of election administration but Citizen Advisory Boards can be a good start in our reform efforts. Partisan organizations serve an important organizational purpose for citizens who want to be involved in supporting candidates, however, partisan groups and their operatives should not continue administering our elections. With respect to our elections these groups and their individual operatives need to be restricted to candidate or observer status and nothing more.
Voting Machine Position Statement Clarification & Extension
Clarification and extension of Peacemakers Voting Machine Position Statement
Re: hand counting of ballots and auditing of election results.
From the previously adopted “Concerning Electronic Voting Machines” Position Statement(1):
… a simple, inexpensive, user-friendly, trustworthy and officially recognized voting system already exists. A system which requires no certification testing. A system which all citizens can understand and have confidence in. That is the Paper Ballot voting system(2). A ballot scanner can be trusted to count the ballots quickly, but only if the scanner is programmed and maintained by municipal workers, not by a private corporation, and the hand counted tally of paper ballots remains the official record of the election.
While not explicitly stated in the above excerpt, our expectation is that the hand counting of the paper ballots would take place at the polling place immediately upon closing of the polls. The counting should be performed by the same authorized and trained poll workers who had supervised and secured the polling place during voting. Ballot counting must be observed by representatives of the candidates and other interested citizens as conditions allow.
It is expected that any discrepancy between the hand count tally and a scanner tally will be immediately reconciled (explained and documented) while all interested parties are present. This is necessary due to the difficulty of maintaining acceptable chain of custody security after the polls close and the ballots are forwarded to election HQ. Chain of custody issues also demand that vote tallies be posted in public view at the polling place for the benefit of any interested citizen wishing to compare polling place tallies with those recorded at central tabulation.
Using this protocol the trustworthiness of the tallies is enhanced and the chain of custody risks are mitigated. Since the hand count of the paper ballots is the official record of the election(3), the scanner tallies can then serve as confirmation of the hand counts. Think of it as a redundant counting system which is dramatically more secure and trustworthy than either system standing alone.
Regarding required audits: The hand count might be thought of as a 100% audit of the scanner count or, preferably, the scanner count should be considered an automatic, contemporaneous electronic audit of the hand count.
(1) Referenced Voting Machine Position Statement reproduced on the reverse of this document.
(2) New York State Election Law Sec. 7-106 describes traditional paper ballot system.
(3) Election Reform & Modernization Act of 2005 created a new NYS Election Law Sec. 9-211 which requires audits and specifies that the results of a total manual count will be the record of canvass.
10/1/08 approved by the Peacemakers Action Committee.
Re: hand counting of ballots and auditing of election results.
From the previously adopted “Concerning Electronic Voting Machines” Position Statement(1):
… a simple, inexpensive, user-friendly, trustworthy and officially recognized voting system already exists. A system which requires no certification testing. A system which all citizens can understand and have confidence in. That is the Paper Ballot voting system(2). A ballot scanner can be trusted to count the ballots quickly, but only if the scanner is programmed and maintained by municipal workers, not by a private corporation, and the hand counted tally of paper ballots remains the official record of the election.
While not explicitly stated in the above excerpt, our expectation is that the hand counting of the paper ballots would take place at the polling place immediately upon closing of the polls. The counting should be performed by the same authorized and trained poll workers who had supervised and secured the polling place during voting. Ballot counting must be observed by representatives of the candidates and other interested citizens as conditions allow.
It is expected that any discrepancy between the hand count tally and a scanner tally will be immediately reconciled (explained and documented) while all interested parties are present. This is necessary due to the difficulty of maintaining acceptable chain of custody security after the polls close and the ballots are forwarded to election HQ. Chain of custody issues also demand that vote tallies be posted in public view at the polling place for the benefit of any interested citizen wishing to compare polling place tallies with those recorded at central tabulation.
Using this protocol the trustworthiness of the tallies is enhanced and the chain of custody risks are mitigated. Since the hand count of the paper ballots is the official record of the election(3), the scanner tallies can then serve as confirmation of the hand counts. Think of it as a redundant counting system which is dramatically more secure and trustworthy than either system standing alone.
Regarding required audits: The hand count might be thought of as a 100% audit of the scanner count or, preferably, the scanner count should be considered an automatic, contemporaneous electronic audit of the hand count.
(1) Referenced Voting Machine Position Statement reproduced on the reverse of this document.
(2) New York State Election Law Sec. 7-106 describes traditional paper ballot system.
(3) Election Reform & Modernization Act of 2005 created a new NYS Election Law Sec. 9-211 which requires audits and specifies that the results of a total manual count will be the record of canvass.
10/1/08 approved by the Peacemakers Action Committee.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Police Power in a Democracy
Limits of Law Enforcement Power
Schoharie County, located in central-Eastern New York state, is a sparely populated small rural community. Its citizens are given to profusely complementing the various public servants who live amongst them. Firemen, Rescue workers and police are their heroes and nary a harsh word is spoken of them.
This community is served by only one hometown weekly newspaper, The Times-Journal of Cobleskill. So perhaps it is not very surprising that the Times-Journal failed to print a letter to the editor critical of law enforcement and disagreeing with an editorial, two weeks in a row.
Not surprising yes, but very disappointing considering the state of our democracy and the need for citizens to be alerted to their responsibilities and the dangers of complacency.
I've posted the letter here for your consideration. Please pass it on to other county citizens, AmJam participants and law enforcement.
Note: AmJam refers to the American Motorcycle Jamboree, a gathering of Harley Davidson riders at the fairgrounds in Cobleskill each Memorial Day weekend.
Wayne
Schoharie County, located in central-Eastern New York state, is a sparely populated small rural community. Its citizens are given to profusely complementing the various public servants who live amongst them. Firemen, Rescue workers and police are their heroes and nary a harsh word is spoken of them.
This community is served by only one hometown weekly newspaper, The Times-Journal of Cobleskill. So perhaps it is not very surprising that the Times-Journal failed to print a letter to the editor critical of law enforcement and disagreeing with an editorial, two weeks in a row.
Not surprising yes, but very disappointing considering the state of our democracy and the need for citizens to be alerted to their responsibilities and the dangers of complacency.
I've posted the letter here for your consideration. Please pass it on to other county citizens, AmJam participants and law enforcement.
Note: AmJam refers to the American Motorcycle Jamboree, a gathering of Harley Davidson riders at the fairgrounds in Cobleskill each Memorial Day weekend.
Wayne
13 August 2008
To the Editor
The Times Journal
Dear Editor,
Understanding Democracy and Executive Power:
State Police enforcement policy has been in the news lately. The July 2nd edition of the T-J reported that the Am-Jam organizers were threatening to leave Cobleskill because of the State Police harassment. The following week the paper included an editorial addressing the same issue.
The Am-Jam folks are justifiably angered by the State Police road blocks their participants are subjected to every year. There's little doubt some potential attendees are deterred, and the experience of those who do attend is significantly degraded, by the police harassment. In point of fact, the quality of life of all Schoharie County Citizens is negatively impacted by the State Police road blocks. Motorists of all descriptions are inconvenienced and annoyed.
When evaluating a public policy, such as law enforcement pressure, we would be well advised to consider all potential visitors as part of our community. We should not subject visitors to a level of law enforcement pressure we would not tolerate ourselves. I am in agreement with the T-J editorial which closed saying we should make visitors feel welcome, however, other editorial comments I find seriously misguided. The editorial stated: "We understand [the Am-Jam organizers] frustration, but she shouldn't expect State Police to back off." and "...Cobleskill Village officials aren't about to ask State Police to lay off, which amounts to asking Troopers to not do their job. This is unthinkable."
I disagree, it is entirely "thinkable," indeed it is our responsibility to comment on and influence law enforcement activities. And, our elected representatives, from the village level on up, are the proper conduit for citizens' input. We certainly can expect law enforcement to "back off" when an offensive policy is more than the citizens are willing to endure, or, if the policy is not supported in law.
State Police Major Spregue was quoted in the July 2nd story referring to "...the State Police...motorcycle safety check program." If the State Police have developed such a statewide motorcycle safety check program and applied it more stringently this year due to a sharp increase in motorcycle fatalities as reported in the news story, they should be able to provide documentation of the policy and statistics relevant to the reasons for and the effectiveness of the program. Major Sprague is also quoted as saying "Any event that draws Hell's Angels is going to be the focus of the State Police." This statement is all the justification needed for citizens to carefully examine the Trooper's behavior relevant to Am-Jam.
The State Police like to use the "Safety Check" rubric so as to allow them to throw the largest net possible, with the least manpower, while avoiding charges of unconstitutional intrusion upon citizen's movement and privacy. It is obvious that the application of this "safety check program" to Am-Jam attendees targets motorcyclists. Factor in the Major's comment about Hell's Angels and the law enforcement purpose of this "safety check" policy becomes very clear: That is the unconstitutional stop and search of certain motorists because of their assumed association with other citizens the police believe might be engaged in criminal activity.
If I am correct in my assessment, Major Sprague, Troop G, the State Police and the State of New York need to re-examine their motorcycle safety check policy, their Hell's Angels harassment policy, and revisit their relevant training efforts. Doing so might mitigate monetary awards resulting from litigation.
Citizens should not hesitate to question executive power and law enforcement policies. In a society ordered by the application of law it is sometimes the case that official enforcers become the law violators. It is every citizen's duty to be alert to that possibility and to speak out for correction of the problem.
To help your readers to more fully understand what is at play with this issue I must ask: How would the Agricultural Society and Schoharie County citizens respond if the State Police set up a vehicle safety check on S. Grand St. during the Sunshine Fair? How would the college, the students and their parents react if the Troopers decided to do their checkpoint in front of the college during student-parent visitation week?
Wayne Stinson
108 Southmeadow Dr.
Summit, NY 12175
518-287-1463
Friday, August 29, 2008
Democracy In New York Election Administration
Is Citizen Oversight of Election Administration a Possibility?
In New York State two private, read restricted membership, organizations have been given exclusive responsibility for election administration. Both the state and local Boards of Elections are staffed with representatives of the two major partisan groups, the Republican and Democratic parties. These two organizations sometimes behave quite undemocratically and their continual combat to control ballot access is responsible for our extremely complex election law.
Perhaps the original drafters of New York’s Election Law were expecting the two major partisan organizations to represent all the citizens, however, the Boards of Elections, staffed only by loyal members of these two groups, do not, indeed can not, effectively represent the whole of their constituencies:
- More than one quarter of eligible citizens are not registered to vote and therefore have no official partisan affiliation but they do have a stake in the effective administration of elections.
- More than one-fifth of registered voters do not specify a party affiliation but they too have a stake in our elections.
- A majority of registered voters who report a party affiliation do not strongly identify with that partisan group and are not active in partisan affairs but they do care how our elections are managed.
- And, most significantly, voters reporting a minor party affiliation are not represented by the Democratic and Republican staff of the Boards of Elections but you can be sure they are intensely interested in how elections are administered.
Exacerbating this problem is the fact that these two major partisan organizations do not exist to make democracy happen: they are more about power and control than sharing. We have often enough read or heard of ugly partisanship resulting in disenfranchisement of some voters or litigation to block ballot access. We must acknowledge that our quasi-governmental election administration system actually delivers control of the election administration chicken coop to the partisan foxes.
New York’s Election Law assigns authority to administer elections to the state and local Boards of Elections. Consequently, the partisan Election Commissioners believe they are autonomous and they generally are not responsive to legislative bodies or the public. Boards of Elections, while theoretically under the fiscal oversight of a legislative body, are actually far beyond effective control because of the lawmakers’ political dependence upon or deference to the partisan leaders. So it seems quite unreasonable to expect lawmakers to provide true oversight or to effectively represent citizens with respect to election administration.
I believe we can agree that oversight of our elections is properly a function of government, however, the existing Board of Elections system fails to serve government or our democracy. New York must reform its election administration system and that reform would best be accomplished by comprehensive study followed by the necessary legislation.
For those of us not comfortable waiting for a complete revamp of the Election Law there are democracy enhancing initiatives which could be put in place now. Legislative bodies could choose to exercise control over election administration by asserting their budgetary prerogatives. And, lawmakers might even flex their oversight muscles some while attempting to fulfill their fiscal responsibilities.
One possible initiative which could serve to enhance legislators’ oversight efforts while at the same time helping to fulfill democracy’s need for transparency is the creation of Citizen Advisory Boards for Election Administration. A cursory search (Google) turns up 28,000 Citizen Advisory Boards in .56 seconds. The examples I perused were government agencies or community-government cooperative projects. Obviously, a Citizen Advisory Board is not some wild way-out-there idea, it‘s been done again and again.
Such a board, composed of volunteers appointed by the legislative body, could serve the lawmakers by complementing their oversight duties. A Citizen Advisory Board could also somewhat insulate lawmakers from partisan pressure while at the same time assisting the Board of Elections with a variety of outreach services or training.
Citizen Advisory Boards could probably be implemented under the existing system without amending election law as long as care is taken to avoid usurping Board of Elections or legislative authority. It is important for enabling resolutions to clearly state to all affected that the service and findings of the Citizen Advisory Board should be respected and adhered to whenever possible.
Citizen Advisory Boards have the potential to bring elections back under the control of citizens. If care is taken to appoint only individuals who are truly representative of the community, and the board works diligently to maintain communication with the community, a Citizen Advisory Board will enjoy the respect of lawmakers, election officials and citizens alike.
The long term goal needs to be the complete reform of election administration but Citizen Advisory Boards would be a good start in our reform efforts.
Partisan organizations serve an important organizational purpose for citizens who want to be involved in supporting candidates, however, partisan groups and their operatives should not be administering our elections. With respect to our elections these groups and their individual operatives need to be restricted to candidate or observer status and nothing more.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Voting Integrity Project Calls For Investigations
I've posted here three Voting Integrity Project documents pertaining to Sequoia Voting Systems and the reported Hart Intercivic hostile takeover I commented on in my earlier post. WRS
The Press Release:
For Immediate Release: 5 May 2008
Contact: Wayne Stinson 518-287-1463
Voting Integrity Project Calls For Investigations
The Peacemakers of Schoharie County, Voting Integrity Project has requested state and federal regulators investigate Sequoia Voting Systems. The Sequoia company is in line to sell their ImageCast ballot marking device to ninety percent of New York counties.
Alarmed by recent revelations of a corporate takeover initiated by Hart Intercivic, a competitor company already under investigation for fraud, and the discovery that Sequoia Voting Systems failed to sever foreign financial interests as required by an earlier federal review, the Voting Integrity Project has requested the New York State Comptroller initiate a Vendor Responsibility Investigation of Sequoia/Hart, and have also asked Congressman Michael McNulty, 21st Congressional District, to refer the issue to The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) for review.
“New York’s voters should not have to worry that their election results could be manipulated by a foreign government or a private corporation. Nor should they have to suffer poor customer service or unreliable equipment” said Voting Integrity Project Coordinator Wayne Stinson. “These investigations are intended to protect the taxpayer’s pocketbook and the sovereignty of the United States. We believe the integrity of our elections is paramount to preserving democracy” Stinson said.
Vendor Responsibility Investigations are required by the State Comptroller’s purchasing rules. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States is an inter-agency committee of the U.S. government that reviews the national security implications of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies or operations.
The New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and both Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton have been apprised of the requests.
Comptroller letter:
30 April 2008
New York State Comptroller
Vendor Responsibility Office
110 State St.
Albany, NY 12236
Vendor Responsibility Staff,
In January of this year, despite all the well intentioned but tardy efforts of the Board of Elections, the US Justice Department seized control of the New York State voting machine selection process.
When the State BOE met in the third week of January they were struggling to
retain some semblance of their bureaucratic identity while complying with the Federal District Court’s directives. Impeded by an absolute partisan split, Judge Sharpe’s corrupting time schedule, and a limited offering of Ballot Marking Devices (BMD) to choose among, the board was initially able to approve only one BMD for purchase by the county Boards of Elections.
The January meeting of the NYS BOE was concurrent with the Election Commissioners Association meeting in Saratoga. With practically all counties represented at that venue, most NY County Election Commissioners immediately signed on for the one BMD choice, the Sequoia ImageCast offered by Sequoia Voting Systems (SVS Inc.) of Denver, CO.
Despite the success of vendors’ legal challenges which eventually allowed other choices almost ninety percent of NY Counties have maintained their selection of the Sequoia machine.
The Sequoia ImageCast is a ballot marking device combined with a ballot scanner that is capable of tabulating votes. It was, at the time of selection, a new assemblage of devices which had not undergone any testing in NY. The scanner portion of this machine is the result of Sequoia’s collaboration with Dominion Voting, Ontario Canada. It is this foreign relationship as well as Sequoia’s other interests and obligations which have recently surfaced that are the cause of our concerns.
Posting on ComputerWorld.com and his own weblog Brad Friedman reports that almost simultaneously with Sequoia’s NY success a competitor voting equipment company, Hart InterCivic Inc. of Austin TX, launched a hostile takeover of S.V.S. Inc. And, Mrt. Friedman reports the takeover is facilitated by Sequoia’s two million dollar obligation to their former parent company, Smartmatic Inc., an offshore consortium with ties to the Venezuelan government. www.bradblog.com/?p=5885
Sequoia had claimed to have severed ties with Smartmatic to avoid a critical review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). However, it now seems that Hart InterCivic wants to purchase that two million dollar obligation as their initial volley in the takeover bid. They may be well on their way to accomplishing that goal by the time you read this.
Mr. Friedman had previously reported (3/27/08) that an unresolved whistle-blower initiated fraud complaint against Hart InterCivic will now be allowed to go forward after being held up for months by the Justice Department. In this litigation Hart is accused of committing fraud by presenting their election software and machines as secure and reliable even though they knew otherwise. www.bradblog.com/?p=5847
Hart InterCivic has a partner company which provides the software side of their offering: SOE Software of Tampa FL. A brief visit to their web page www.soesoftware.com reveals that two of their top management team have previous business relationships with Mobil, Sperry Univac, General Dynamic, IBM, Raytheon, AT&T, MCI and Motorola. This raises the specter of future corporate meddling in our elections in addition to foreign influence.
Regardless of how this takeover bid ends it seems obvious that New York State should take a careful look at these vendors. Giving the changes reported above, the BOE and the State Comptrollers Office must undertake vendor responsibility investigations This review would rightly be triggered by either the foreign financial interest in Sequoia or the vendor substitution by Hart, especially since both vendors have been untruthful or are now accused of being untruthful.
More importantly, we need to consider what this is all about, and it's not only about the immediate profit from the sale of voting machines. It's about power and the possibility of much greater future profits. No one knows better than the machine manufacturers and vendors how efficient computerized vote counting can be for controlling elections.
Please investigate the responsibility of these vendors, both the primary voting machine vendors and their secondary affiliated entities.
For the Voting Integrity Project,
Wayne Stinson, Coordinator
CC: NYS Board of Elections, NYS Attorney General
Letter to Representative McNulty, 21st CD:
30 April 2008
Rep. Michael McNulty
2210 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515-3221
Dear Rep. McNulty,
In January of this year, despite all the well intentioned but tardy efforts of the New York State Board of Elections (BOE) the US Justice Department seized control of the NY voting machine selection process.
When the BOE met in the third week of January they were struggling to
retain some semblance of their bureaucratic identity while complying with the Federal District Court’s directives. Impeded by an absolute partisan split, Judge Sharpe’s corrupting time schedule, and a limited offering of Ballot Marking Devices to choose from, the board was initially able to approve only one BMD for purchase by the county Boards of Elections.
The January meeting of the NYS BOE was concurrent with the State Election Commissioners Association meeting in Saratoga. With practically all counties represented at that venue most NY County Election Commissioners immediately signed on for the only BMD choice, the Sequoia ImageCast offered by Sequoia Voting Systems (SVS Inc.) of Denver, CO.
Despite the success of vendors’ legal challenges, which eventually allowed other choices, almost ninety percent of NY Counties have maintained their selection of the Sequoia machine.
The Sequoia ImageCast is a ballot marking device combined with a ballot scanner that is capable of tabulating votes. It was, at the time of selection, a new assemblage of devices which had not undergone any testing in NY. The scanner portion of this machine is the result of Sequoia’s collaboration with Dominion Voting, Ontario Canada. It is this potential foreign influence and Sequoia’s other interests and obligations which have recently surfaced, that are the cause of our concerns.
Posting on ComputerWorld.com and his own weblog Brad Friedman reports that almost simultaneously with Sequoia’s NY success a competitor voting equipment company, Hart InterCivic Inc. of Austin TX, launched a hostile takeover of Sequoia Voting Systems. Mr. Friedman also reveals that the takeover is facilitated by Sequoia’s two million dollar obligation to their former parent company, Smartmatic Inc., an offshore consortium with ties to the Venezuelan government. www.bradblog.com/?p=5885
Sequoia had claimed to have severed its ties with Smartmatic in order to avoid a critical review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). However, it now seems that a financial connection to the multi-national remains and Hart InterCivic wants to purchase that two million dollar note as their initial volley in the takeover bid.
Hart InterCivic has a partner company which provides the software side of their offering: SOE Software of Tampa FL. A brief visit to their web page www.soesoftware.com reveals that two of their top management team have previous business relationships with Mobil, Sperry Univac, General Dynamic, IBM, Raytheon, AT&T, MCI and Motorola. This raises the specter of future corporate meddling in our elections as well as foreign influence.
Regardless of how this takeover ends it seems obvious that New York State and congress must take another look at these vendors. A CFIUS review is warranted given the evidence of foreign financial interest in Sequoia (Canadian and Venezuelan +?) and the vendor’s deceit.
Most importantly, we must consider what this is all about. It's not only about the immediate profit from the sale of voting machines. It's about power and the possibility of much greater future profits. No one knows better than the machine manufacturers and vendors how efficient computerized vote counting can be for controlling elections.
Please help protect the integrity of our elections. Initiate CFIUS reviews of Sequoia and Hart Intercivic.
For the Voting Integrity Project,
Wayne Stinson, Coordinator
Cc: New York State Board of Elections, Senator C. Schumer, Senator H. Clinton
The Press Release:
For Immediate Release: 5 May 2008
Contact: Wayne Stinson 518-287-1463
Voting Integrity Project Calls For Investigations
The Peacemakers of Schoharie County, Voting Integrity Project has requested state and federal regulators investigate Sequoia Voting Systems. The Sequoia company is in line to sell their ImageCast ballot marking device to ninety percent of New York counties.
Alarmed by recent revelations of a corporate takeover initiated by Hart Intercivic, a competitor company already under investigation for fraud, and the discovery that Sequoia Voting Systems failed to sever foreign financial interests as required by an earlier federal review, the Voting Integrity Project has requested the New York State Comptroller initiate a Vendor Responsibility Investigation of Sequoia/Hart, and have also asked Congressman Michael McNulty, 21st Congressional District, to refer the issue to The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) for review.
“New York’s voters should not have to worry that their election results could be manipulated by a foreign government or a private corporation. Nor should they have to suffer poor customer service or unreliable equipment” said Voting Integrity Project Coordinator Wayne Stinson. “These investigations are intended to protect the taxpayer’s pocketbook and the sovereignty of the United States. We believe the integrity of our elections is paramount to preserving democracy” Stinson said.
Vendor Responsibility Investigations are required by the State Comptroller’s purchasing rules. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States is an inter-agency committee of the U.S. government that reviews the national security implications of foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies or operations.
The New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and both Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton have been apprised of the requests.
Comptroller letter:
30 April 2008
New York State Comptroller
Vendor Responsibility Office
110 State St.
Albany, NY 12236
Vendor Responsibility Staff,
In January of this year, despite all the well intentioned but tardy efforts of the Board of Elections, the US Justice Department seized control of the New York State voting machine selection process.
When the State BOE met in the third week of January they were struggling to
retain some semblance of their bureaucratic identity while complying with the Federal District Court’s directives. Impeded by an absolute partisan split, Judge Sharpe’s corrupting time schedule, and a limited offering of Ballot Marking Devices (BMD) to choose among, the board was initially able to approve only one BMD for purchase by the county Boards of Elections.
The January meeting of the NYS BOE was concurrent with the Election Commissioners Association meeting in Saratoga. With practically all counties represented at that venue, most NY County Election Commissioners immediately signed on for the one BMD choice, the Sequoia ImageCast offered by Sequoia Voting Systems (SVS Inc.) of Denver, CO.
Despite the success of vendors’ legal challenges which eventually allowed other choices almost ninety percent of NY Counties have maintained their selection of the Sequoia machine.
The Sequoia ImageCast is a ballot marking device combined with a ballot scanner that is capable of tabulating votes. It was, at the time of selection, a new assemblage of devices which had not undergone any testing in NY. The scanner portion of this machine is the result of Sequoia’s collaboration with Dominion Voting, Ontario Canada. It is this foreign relationship as well as Sequoia’s other interests and obligations which have recently surfaced that are the cause of our concerns.
Posting on ComputerWorld.com and his own weblog Brad Friedman reports that almost simultaneously with Sequoia’s NY success a competitor voting equipment company, Hart InterCivic Inc. of Austin TX, launched a hostile takeover of S.V.S. Inc. And, Mrt. Friedman reports the takeover is facilitated by Sequoia’s two million dollar obligation to their former parent company, Smartmatic Inc., an offshore consortium with ties to the Venezuelan government. www.bradblog.com/?p=5885
Sequoia had claimed to have severed ties with Smartmatic to avoid a critical review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). However, it now seems that Hart InterCivic wants to purchase that two million dollar obligation as their initial volley in the takeover bid. They may be well on their way to accomplishing that goal by the time you read this.
Mr. Friedman had previously reported (3/27/08) that an unresolved whistle-blower initiated fraud complaint against Hart InterCivic will now be allowed to go forward after being held up for months by the Justice Department. In this litigation Hart is accused of committing fraud by presenting their election software and machines as secure and reliable even though they knew otherwise. www.bradblog.com/?p=5847
Hart InterCivic has a partner company which provides the software side of their offering: SOE Software of Tampa FL. A brief visit to their web page www.soesoftware.com reveals that two of their top management team have previous business relationships with Mobil, Sperry Univac, General Dynamic, IBM, Raytheon, AT&T, MCI and Motorola. This raises the specter of future corporate meddling in our elections in addition to foreign influence.
Regardless of how this takeover bid ends it seems obvious that New York State should take a careful look at these vendors. Giving the changes reported above, the BOE and the State Comptrollers Office must undertake vendor responsibility investigations This review would rightly be triggered by either the foreign financial interest in Sequoia or the vendor substitution by Hart, especially since both vendors have been untruthful or are now accused of being untruthful.
More importantly, we need to consider what this is all about, and it's not only about the immediate profit from the sale of voting machines. It's about power and the possibility of much greater future profits. No one knows better than the machine manufacturers and vendors how efficient computerized vote counting can be for controlling elections.
Please investigate the responsibility of these vendors, both the primary voting machine vendors and their secondary affiliated entities.
For the Voting Integrity Project,
Wayne Stinson, Coordinator
CC: NYS Board of Elections, NYS Attorney General
Letter to Representative McNulty, 21st CD:
30 April 2008
Rep. Michael McNulty
2210 Rayburn Building
Washington, DC 20515-3221
Dear Rep. McNulty,
In January of this year, despite all the well intentioned but tardy efforts of the New York State Board of Elections (BOE) the US Justice Department seized control of the NY voting machine selection process.
When the BOE met in the third week of January they were struggling to
retain some semblance of their bureaucratic identity while complying with the Federal District Court’s directives. Impeded by an absolute partisan split, Judge Sharpe’s corrupting time schedule, and a limited offering of Ballot Marking Devices to choose from, the board was initially able to approve only one BMD for purchase by the county Boards of Elections.
The January meeting of the NYS BOE was concurrent with the State Election Commissioners Association meeting in Saratoga. With practically all counties represented at that venue most NY County Election Commissioners immediately signed on for the only BMD choice, the Sequoia ImageCast offered by Sequoia Voting Systems (SVS Inc.) of Denver, CO.
Despite the success of vendors’ legal challenges, which eventually allowed other choices, almost ninety percent of NY Counties have maintained their selection of the Sequoia machine.
The Sequoia ImageCast is a ballot marking device combined with a ballot scanner that is capable of tabulating votes. It was, at the time of selection, a new assemblage of devices which had not undergone any testing in NY. The scanner portion of this machine is the result of Sequoia’s collaboration with Dominion Voting, Ontario Canada. It is this potential foreign influence and Sequoia’s other interests and obligations which have recently surfaced, that are the cause of our concerns.
Posting on ComputerWorld.com and his own weblog Brad Friedman reports that almost simultaneously with Sequoia’s NY success a competitor voting equipment company, Hart InterCivic Inc. of Austin TX, launched a hostile takeover of Sequoia Voting Systems. Mr. Friedman also reveals that the takeover is facilitated by Sequoia’s two million dollar obligation to their former parent company, Smartmatic Inc., an offshore consortium with ties to the Venezuelan government. www.bradblog.com/?p=5885
Sequoia had claimed to have severed its ties with Smartmatic in order to avoid a critical review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). However, it now seems that a financial connection to the multi-national remains and Hart InterCivic wants to purchase that two million dollar note as their initial volley in the takeover bid.
Hart InterCivic has a partner company which provides the software side of their offering: SOE Software of Tampa FL. A brief visit to their web page www.soesoftware.com reveals that two of their top management team have previous business relationships with Mobil, Sperry Univac, General Dynamic, IBM, Raytheon, AT&T, MCI and Motorola. This raises the specter of future corporate meddling in our elections as well as foreign influence.
Regardless of how this takeover ends it seems obvious that New York State and congress must take another look at these vendors. A CFIUS review is warranted given the evidence of foreign financial interest in Sequoia (Canadian and Venezuelan +?) and the vendor’s deceit.
Most importantly, we must consider what this is all about. It's not only about the immediate profit from the sale of voting machines. It's about power and the possibility of much greater future profits. No one knows better than the machine manufacturers and vendors how efficient computerized vote counting can be for controlling elections.
Please help protect the integrity of our elections. Initiate CFIUS reviews of Sequoia and Hart Intercivic.
For the Voting Integrity Project,
Wayne Stinson, Coordinator
Cc: New York State Board of Elections, Senator C. Schumer, Senator H. Clinton
Monday, April 14, 2008
A Tawdry Morass We Can Avoid
Lets not facilitate corporate crime - hand count the paper ballots
In January of this year, despite all the well intentioned but tardy efforts of the Board of Elections, the US Justice Department seized control of the New York State voting machine selection process.
When the State BOE met in the third week of January they were struggling to retain some semblance of their bureaucratic identity while complying with the Federal District Court’s directives. Impeded by an absolute partisan split, Judge Sharpe’s corrupting time schedule, and a limited offering of Ballot Marking Devices to choose from, the board was initially able to approve only one BMD for purchase by the county Boards of Elections.
The January meeting of the NYS BOE was concurrent with the Election Commissioners Association meeting in Saratoga. With practically all counties represented at that venue most NY County Election Commissioners immediately signed on for the one BMD choice, the Sequoia ImageCast offered by Sequoia Voting Systems (SVS Inc.) of Denver, CO.
Despite the success of vendors’ legal challenges which eventually allowed other choices almost ninety percent of NY Counties and all but one upstate county have maintained their selection of the Sequoia machine. The Justice Department has indicated they will not allow any additional changes.
The Sequoia ImageCast is a ballot marking device combined with a ballot scanner that is capable of tabulating votes. It was, at the time of selection, a new assemblage of devices which had not undergone any testing in NY. The scanner portion of this machine is the result of Sequoia’s collaboration with Dominion Voting, Ontario Canada. It is Sequoia’s other interests and obligations which have recently surfaced that are of more serious concern.
Posting on ComputerWorld.com and his own blog Brad Friedman reports that almost simultaneously with Sequoia’s NY success a competitor voting equipment company, Hart InterCivic Inc. of Austin TX, launched a hostile takeover of S.V.S. Inc. And we learn that the takeover is facilitated by Sequoia’s two million dollar obligation to their former parent company, Smartmatic Inc., an offshore consortium with ties to the Venezuelan government. www.bradblog.com/?p=5885
Sequoia claimed to have severed ties with Smartmatic after the Smartmatic CEO was denied entry by Homeland Security and, presumably, to avoid a critical review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). However, it now seems that Hart InterCivic wants to purchase that two million dollar lever as their initial volley in the takeover bid. They may be well on their way to accomplishing that goal by the time you read this.
Mr. Friedman had previously reported (3/27/08) that an unresolved whistle-blower initiated fraud complaint against Hart InterCivic will now be allowed to go forward after being held up for months by the Justice Department. In this litigation Hart is accused of committing fraud by presenting their election software and machines as secure and reliable even though they knew otherwise. www.bradblog.com/?p=5847
Hart InterCivic has a partner company which provides the software side of their package: SOE Software of Tampa FL. A brief visit to their web page www.soesoftware.com reveals that two of their top management team have previous business relationships with Mobil, Sperry Univac, General Dynamic, IBM, Raytheon, AT&T, MCI and Motorola. This does not give me hope for tamper free elections should Hart have any access to our votes.
Regardless of how this corporate war ends it seems obvious that New York State should take another look at their hopeful voting equipment vendors. The BOE and the State Comptrollers Office have to do a new Vendor Responsibility Investigation (at this writing do not know if this investigation was originally done as required). This investigation would rightly be triggered by either the foreign financial interest in Sequoia or the vendor substitution by Hart, especially since both vendors have been untruthful or are now accused of being untruthful. Don’t expect this to happen. Even if the State did do an investigation the Bush Justice Dept. would render it moot.
More importantly, we need to consider what this is all about, and it's not only about the immediate profit from the sale of voting machines. It's about power and the possibility of much greater future profits. No one knows better than the machine manufacturers and vendors how efficient computerized vote counting can be for controlling elections.
If you doubt this analysis please consider how much money the presidential candidates are spending on their campaigns. That's what control of vote counting is worth, again and again, year after year.
So where does this leave the New York State voters?
Most election integrity activists considered the ImageCast BMD/scanner choice a victory in that it practically and fiscally guaranteed we would be voting on paper ballots in 2009. Not having to cast our ballots using a direct recording electronic voting machine and instead having the inherently verifiable paper ballot is a win, but only a partial win. Our remaining problem is reliance on a software controlled scanner and election management computer programs, all susceptible to manipulation by a variety of untrustworthy corporate actors, election insiders and technocrats, to count our votes.
Unable to rely on state bureaucracies, the Justice Department or Federal Courts to protect us from the threats to voting integrity privatization and lack of transparency represents, the task falls to us. As citizens we have to assume responsibility for the vote count. The verifiable paper ballot is of no service to election integrity unless they are counted by the voters themselves. A scanner using open source software and maintained by municipal workers might be used to confirm the count but the official count has to be the one performed by citizens, at the polling place upon closing of the polls.
I do like to end on a positive note with an action suggestion. We should slaughter the golden goose and disappoint all the wolves that are circling us. We can ban the scanners and decide to hand count the paper ballots. If we did that the wolves would quickly lose interest. Then we will need only to concern ourselves with dealing with each other instead of the corporations.
In January of this year, despite all the well intentioned but tardy efforts of the Board of Elections, the US Justice Department seized control of the New York State voting machine selection process.
When the State BOE met in the third week of January they were struggling to retain some semblance of their bureaucratic identity while complying with the Federal District Court’s directives. Impeded by an absolute partisan split, Judge Sharpe’s corrupting time schedule, and a limited offering of Ballot Marking Devices to choose from, the board was initially able to approve only one BMD for purchase by the county Boards of Elections.
The January meeting of the NYS BOE was concurrent with the Election Commissioners Association meeting in Saratoga. With practically all counties represented at that venue most NY County Election Commissioners immediately signed on for the one BMD choice, the Sequoia ImageCast offered by Sequoia Voting Systems (SVS Inc.) of Denver, CO.
Despite the success of vendors’ legal challenges which eventually allowed other choices almost ninety percent of NY Counties and all but one upstate county have maintained their selection of the Sequoia machine. The Justice Department has indicated they will not allow any additional changes.
The Sequoia ImageCast is a ballot marking device combined with a ballot scanner that is capable of tabulating votes. It was, at the time of selection, a new assemblage of devices which had not undergone any testing in NY. The scanner portion of this machine is the result of Sequoia’s collaboration with Dominion Voting, Ontario Canada. It is Sequoia’s other interests and obligations which have recently surfaced that are of more serious concern.
Posting on ComputerWorld.com and his own blog Brad Friedman reports that almost simultaneously with Sequoia’s NY success a competitor voting equipment company, Hart InterCivic Inc. of Austin TX, launched a hostile takeover of S.V.S. Inc. And we learn that the takeover is facilitated by Sequoia’s two million dollar obligation to their former parent company, Smartmatic Inc., an offshore consortium with ties to the Venezuelan government. www.bradblog.com/?p=5885
Sequoia claimed to have severed ties with Smartmatic after the Smartmatic CEO was denied entry by Homeland Security and, presumably, to avoid a critical review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). However, it now seems that Hart InterCivic wants to purchase that two million dollar lever as their initial volley in the takeover bid. They may be well on their way to accomplishing that goal by the time you read this.
Mr. Friedman had previously reported (3/27/08) that an unresolved whistle-blower initiated fraud complaint against Hart InterCivic will now be allowed to go forward after being held up for months by the Justice Department. In this litigation Hart is accused of committing fraud by presenting their election software and machines as secure and reliable even though they knew otherwise. www.bradblog.com/?p=5847
Hart InterCivic has a partner company which provides the software side of their package: SOE Software of Tampa FL. A brief visit to their web page www.soesoftware.com reveals that two of their top management team have previous business relationships with Mobil, Sperry Univac, General Dynamic, IBM, Raytheon, AT&T, MCI and Motorola. This does not give me hope for tamper free elections should Hart have any access to our votes.
Regardless of how this corporate war ends it seems obvious that New York State should take another look at their hopeful voting equipment vendors. The BOE and the State Comptrollers Office have to do a new Vendor Responsibility Investigation (at this writing do not know if this investigation was originally done as required). This investigation would rightly be triggered by either the foreign financial interest in Sequoia or the vendor substitution by Hart, especially since both vendors have been untruthful or are now accused of being untruthful. Don’t expect this to happen. Even if the State did do an investigation the Bush Justice Dept. would render it moot.
More importantly, we need to consider what this is all about, and it's not only about the immediate profit from the sale of voting machines. It's about power and the possibility of much greater future profits. No one knows better than the machine manufacturers and vendors how efficient computerized vote counting can be for controlling elections.
If you doubt this analysis please consider how much money the presidential candidates are spending on their campaigns. That's what control of vote counting is worth, again and again, year after year.
So where does this leave the New York State voters?
Most election integrity activists considered the ImageCast BMD/scanner choice a victory in that it practically and fiscally guaranteed we would be voting on paper ballots in 2009. Not having to cast our ballots using a direct recording electronic voting machine and instead having the inherently verifiable paper ballot is a win, but only a partial win. Our remaining problem is reliance on a software controlled scanner and election management computer programs, all susceptible to manipulation by a variety of untrustworthy corporate actors, election insiders and technocrats, to count our votes.
Unable to rely on state bureaucracies, the Justice Department or Federal Courts to protect us from the threats to voting integrity privatization and lack of transparency represents, the task falls to us. As citizens we have to assume responsibility for the vote count. The verifiable paper ballot is of no service to election integrity unless they are counted by the voters themselves. A scanner using open source software and maintained by municipal workers might be used to confirm the count but the official count has to be the one performed by citizens, at the polling place upon closing of the polls.
I do like to end on a positive note with an action suggestion. We should slaughter the golden goose and disappoint all the wolves that are circling us. We can ban the scanners and decide to hand count the paper ballots. If we did that the wolves would quickly lose interest. Then we will need only to concern ourselves with dealing with each other instead of the corporations.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The Indispensable Element: Paper Ballots
Paper Ballots are indeed a necessary component...
but not sufficient to produce trustworthy elections. Yes, we paper ballot advocates have been successful. This first major battle, hard fought over the past 4 years, is a win for the election integrity groups fighting against the direct recording electronic voting machines (DRE) in New York State.
The most recent, and hopefully the last, deadline for local election officials to report their choice for 2008 equipment purchases passed last week. All but one of the 62 New York State counties have selected ballot marking devices (BMD) compatible with paper ballots. And lawmakers in Hamilton County might still intercede to prevent their county from being the only DRE county in the state.
The BMDs will be deployed this year in partial compliance with the so-called Help America Vote Act (HAVA). The courts have dictated that New York must accomodate disabled voters at every polling place this year. Complete HAVA compliance is to be achieved in 2009 and the choices made this year indicate that paper ballots will be the final HAVA solution.
Paper ballots make fraud free elections POSSIBLE....... they certainly do not provide anything near a guarantee of same. Several prominent writers have argued that the current concerns about the voting machines are a distraction from the real problems. Those problems being various forms of voter misinformation, disenfranchisement and intimidation which have occurred over the years regardless of the machinery used. Suffice it to say there are many people, some of them serving as election officials, who are not committed to democracy and can not be trusted to protect the integrity of the vote.
Protecting the integrity of the vote is our job...and the job is far from done. Our efforts must now turn to the many other devices, conditions and actors which stand in the way of true democratic and honest elections. The conversation has already started concerning such things as effective audits, secure chain of custody procedures, reform of election administration, and greater transparency for the entire process. As activists we surely will continue our advocacy for better elections and press for the needed changes.
One of the most effective actions we can take requires no new laws or large expenditures of cash. What is needed is a commitment to democracy and a willingness to contribute to community. Citizens must become involved in our elections to a much greater degree than we have. As individuals we can volunteer to serve as Election Inspectors and Poll Watchers or work at get out the vote programs. As members of community service organizations we can urge the organizations to support such efforts.
It seems necessary to state the obvious: We can not complain about the lack of transparency if we're not there to see, and we can not contribute to improved administration if we are not there to discover how the job is done and what needs to change. For democracy and election integrity we have to be there.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
No Fat Lady Song Yet
So you thought we were at the finish line......Nope. Not yet.
23 January '08 and the election integrity advocates watching the goings on of the state Board of Elections in Saratoga were proud of Commissioner Doug Kellner as he tried to hold the board together to do their duty. He failed, the two Republican Commissioners refused to come to the table. They wanted their favored friend, Liberty Election Systems, to be approved and were holding the meeting up while various Albany politicians twisted arms and threatened kneecaps.
Before the Board even began their meeting it was announced that Republican Co-Executive Director Peter Kosinski had left the office and legal assistant Todd Valentine was to replace him. I have no info as to the reason for these personnel moves but the timing causes one to suspect a connection to the voting equipment struggle. We note the Republican side of the board has been championing Liberty from day one. (Another observer notes that Sequoia has also had political champions since early in the game. If so that might partially account for that vendor's success)
Many of us had to leave Saratoga that evening without knowing how the struggle would play out. The next morning we were gratified to hear that the Republicans had joined Kellner in approving three ballot marking systems, all compatible with paper ballots. The joy was short lived however.
Within hours of the vote rumors were heard that at least one of the rejected applicants was planning to litigate their exclusion. And then, on Monday, the authorization for two systems using the AutoMark BMD were recinded by vitue of a vote by the Republican Executive Director, leaving Sequoia the only system standing. Before the end of the week we knew that two vendors were in court attempting to compel the BOE to include their machines.
Should Liberty Election Systems prevail some local Election Commissioners would likely choose this DRE-jury-rigged-to-BMD, a very poor choice. The other litigant, Premier Election Solutions, will be arguing to be reinstated. They probably should be since the AutoMark BMD they feature has been in service in other states for several years and enjoys the acceptance of the disabled community.
The absurdity of this wretched drama is that the three machines initially approved have not been tested and are not certified by the state BOE. These systems are prototypes and are only available by virtue of the pressure applied by the Federal Court. The two systems using the AutoMark BMD (Premier and ES&S) at least have that unit's experience supporting their acceptance. The Sequoia ImageCast is a totally untested BMD mated with a scanner used in Canada.
Several counties have already announced their decision. Schoharie County Commissioners Cliff Hay (D) and Lew Wilson (R) are reported to have chosen the Sequoia within just a couple of days after the BOE met. That same news report quoted the contract total cost as $250,000.00 for eighteen Sequoia units. That's $13,888.00 each unit! A scary high number which seems to indicate the vendors are taking advantage of the federal court's pressure.
Part of the reason for the high price tag is that the vendors offer their equipment as a system comprised of a ballot marking device and a ballot scanner. I understand the Sequoia must be purchased this way while ES&S and Premier will sell the AutoMark BMD alone. Jurisdicitions choosing the AutoMark BMD only for this year are effectively keeping all their options open as to which scanner to select for 2009. This seems to be a sensible course of action.
We'll be revisiting this issue later this week after the courts hear vendor's arguments and render decisions. Oh yeah, the finish line is out there in the fall of 2009. We've got a lot of running and shouting to do before then.
23 January '08 and the election integrity advocates watching the goings on of the state Board of Elections in Saratoga were proud of Commissioner Doug Kellner as he tried to hold the board together to do their duty. He failed, the two Republican Commissioners refused to come to the table. They wanted their favored friend, Liberty Election Systems, to be approved and were holding the meeting up while various Albany politicians twisted arms and threatened kneecaps.
Before the Board even began their meeting it was announced that Republican Co-Executive Director Peter Kosinski had left the office and legal assistant Todd Valentine was to replace him. I have no info as to the reason for these personnel moves but the timing causes one to suspect a connection to the voting equipment struggle. We note the Republican side of the board has been championing Liberty from day one. (Another observer notes that Sequoia has also had political champions since early in the game. If so that might partially account for that vendor's success)
Many of us had to leave Saratoga that evening without knowing how the struggle would play out. The next morning we were gratified to hear that the Republicans had joined Kellner in approving three ballot marking systems, all compatible with paper ballots. The joy was short lived however.
Within hours of the vote rumors were heard that at least one of the rejected applicants was planning to litigate their exclusion. And then, on Monday, the authorization for two systems using the AutoMark BMD were recinded by vitue of a vote by the Republican Executive Director, leaving Sequoia the only system standing. Before the end of the week we knew that two vendors were in court attempting to compel the BOE to include their machines.
Should Liberty Election Systems prevail some local Election Commissioners would likely choose this DRE-jury-rigged-to-BMD, a very poor choice. The other litigant, Premier Election Solutions, will be arguing to be reinstated. They probably should be since the AutoMark BMD they feature has been in service in other states for several years and enjoys the acceptance of the disabled community.
The absurdity of this wretched drama is that the three machines initially approved have not been tested and are not certified by the state BOE. These systems are prototypes and are only available by virtue of the pressure applied by the Federal Court. The two systems using the AutoMark BMD (Premier and ES&S) at least have that unit's experience supporting their acceptance. The Sequoia ImageCast is a totally untested BMD mated with a scanner used in Canada.
Several counties have already announced their decision. Schoharie County Commissioners Cliff Hay (D) and Lew Wilson (R) are reported to have chosen the Sequoia within just a couple of days after the BOE met. That same news report quoted the contract total cost as $250,000.00 for eighteen Sequoia units. That's $13,888.00 each unit! A scary high number which seems to indicate the vendors are taking advantage of the federal court's pressure.
Part of the reason for the high price tag is that the vendors offer their equipment as a system comprised of a ballot marking device and a ballot scanner. I understand the Sequoia must be purchased this way while ES&S and Premier will sell the AutoMark BMD alone. Jurisdicitions choosing the AutoMark BMD only for this year are effectively keeping all their options open as to which scanner to select for 2009. This seems to be a sensible course of action.
We'll be revisiting this issue later this week after the courts hear vendor's arguments and render decisions. Oh yeah, the finish line is out there in the fall of 2009. We've got a lot of running and shouting to do before then.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Partisanship, Arrogance, Malfeasance & We Won!
My earliest contact with the NY State Board of Elections with respect to our struggle against electronic voting machines was over three years ago. At that time I delivered a written complaint which included an observation that one machine vendor was receiving favorable treatment. Our complaint was delivered to Chairman Neil Kelleher(R) .
I explained the board's actions could be cause for suspicion and I demanded explanations which might assure NY citizens that the board was not corrupted and was indeed living up to their mission statement. The following from their mission statement:
I never did get an answer to this question or the many others asked since. The accuracy of the suspicions I expressed back then was borne out this week in Saratoga.
The NYS Board of Elections met Wednesday morning concurrent with the Election Commissioners Association meeting at the Holiday Inn, Saratoga. County Election Commissioners, their staff, news media, and election integrity advocates were all there to hear which machines the state board would authorize as ballot marking devices because much hangs on the type of equipment chosen(see my earlier post concerning the BMD issue). I was there also.
I will spare you all the gory details. In short, the two Republican State Election Commissioners (Kelleher & Donohue) prevented a decision from being made by simply not coming into the room - no Republican Commissioners - no meeting - no vote!
Furthermore, there was no pretense. The Republicans were holding out for the inclusion of the LibertyVote machine - the same machine we believed was getting special treatment at the beginning. For a heartfelt description of the goings on at Saratoga check out Bo Lipari's blog: http://nyvv.org/blog/bolipariblog.html
As the day wore on into early evening we learned that the two recalcitrant commissioners were serving the interests of Senate Majority leader J. Bruno. And Bruno is serving who? And who is the Republican party serving?
The actions this day of these partisan operatives make a powerfrul arguement for reform of New York election administration. We desperately need an independent, non-partisan system of election administration.
Some election integrity advocates vowed to return to Saratoga Thursday to watch over the miscreants and perhaps shame them into making the right decision.
WE WON! - Thursday 1/24/08 11:40 AM, This message from Susan Lipari:
"The Board just approved the Automark and the Dominion. No DRE was approved."
I explained the board's actions could be cause for suspicion and I demanded explanations which might assure NY citizens that the board was not corrupted and was indeed living up to their mission statement. The following from their mission statement:
| "...In addition to the regulatory and enforcement responsibilities the board is charged with the preservation of citizen confidence in the democratic process and enhancement in voter participation in elections." |  | |
| ||
The NYS Board of Elections met Wednesday morning concurrent with the Election Commissioners Association meeting at the Holiday Inn, Saratoga. County Election Commissioners, their staff, news media, and election integrity advocates were all there to hear which machines the state board would authorize as ballot marking devices because much hangs on the type of equipment chosen(see my earlier post concerning the BMD issue). I was there also.
I will spare you all the gory details. In short, the two Republican State Election Commissioners (Kelleher & Donohue) prevented a decision from being made by simply not coming into the room - no Republican Commissioners - no meeting - no vote!
Furthermore, there was no pretense. The Republicans were holding out for the inclusion of the LibertyVote machine - the same machine we believed was getting special treatment at the beginning. For a heartfelt description of the goings on at Saratoga check out Bo Lipari's blog: http://nyvv.org/blog/bolipariblog.html
As the day wore on into early evening we learned that the two recalcitrant commissioners were serving the interests of Senate Majority leader J. Bruno. And Bruno is serving who? And who is the Republican party serving?
The actions this day of these partisan operatives make a powerfrul arguement for reform of New York election administration. We desperately need an independent, non-partisan system of election administration.
Some election integrity advocates vowed to return to Saratoga Thursday to watch over the miscreants and perhaps shame them into making the right decision.
WE WON! - Thursday 1/24/08 11:40 AM, This message from Susan Lipari:
"The Board just approved the Automark and the Dominion. No DRE was approved."
Board Reaffirms Support for PBOS
VIP at County Board Meeting
Last week two representatives of the Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project addressed the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors appealing to them to reaffirm their commitment to paper ballot/optical scan voting (PBOS).
Adair DeLamater and Sue Spivack were assertive and eloquent Friday morning.....and apparently effective in as much as the board again unanimously approved a resolution favoring a paper ballot voting system. They had first expressed such sentiment in the fall of 2005 following an intense lobbying effort and petition drive by the Peacemakers.
Supervisor Robert Mann of Blenheim Town was absent and did not vote.
The statements of the two VIP representatives are reproduced below.
Wayne
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 18, 2008
Remarks of Adair DeLamater to the Schoharie Board of Supervisors
Chairman VanWormer, Town Supervisors
I appreciate the opportunity to express to you my concerns about the type of voting system that will be chosen for Schoharie County. Time is short; the decision must be made by February 8, 2008. Our two Election Commissioners were appointed to their positions by the Board of Supervisors; you are responsible to see that they carry out their duties in the best interest of the voters and taxpayers of Schoharie County.
I would like to review the advantages and disadvantages of electronic voting systems vs. paper ballot/optical scanners. I will refer to electronic systems as DREs, and paper ballot/optical scanners as PBOS.
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: Multiple polls have demonstrated that the public prefers PBOS over DREs. In 2006, 69 million voters used OS ballots; 66 million used electronic equipment. Many countries and states that utilized DREs are replacing them with PBOS. New Mexico installed PBOS statewide in 2004. Maryland’s governor is trying to replace DREs with PBOS. All six New England states utilize PBOS or hand counted ballots in many election districts. California’s Sec of State decertified some DREs and will use hand counted ballots until scanners are deployed. Presently, over half the counties in California use PBOS systems. In Ohio and Colorado, Sec of State have decertified DREs and will substitute PBOS systems. A recent poll by the PBS program New York NOW provided the results that 0% of respondents favored DREs.
COSTS; DREs have higher costs than PBOS for initial purchase, transportation, secure climate controlled storage, and maintenance. A PBOS system can process more voters per machine than DREs. Thus, more machines (at $8,000 to $10,000 each) would be needed with a DRE system. Because DREs are very heavy (about 235 lbs each, as opposed to 19 to 39 lbs for OS), they require two people to move them on a wheeled device, and must be transported on a truck with a lift system. One person can carry a scanner, and they can be stacked for storage, thus requiring much less space in secure, climate controlled storage. In districts utilizing PBOS, local election staff transport the equipment. With DREs, software is a trade secret, and company officials program the DREs, test them, and count the ballots, without input from public election staff. There is an annual fee (approximately 12% of the contract) for continued use of the DREs. HAVA funds would cover the cost of OS and ballot marking devices for Schoharie; because a greater number of more expensive machines would be needed for a DRE system, the cost would greatly exceed the funds that will be available.
EASE OF USE With PBOS, the voter marks their ballot themselves, and can see what choices they have made before presenting the ballot for scanning. The scanner alerts any under vote or over vote, and the voter is able to correct the ballot in the case of an under vote, or is given a fresh ballot in the case of an over vote. This is not true of DREs; multiple sites have experienced problems with under votes, and over votes are rejected and not counted. PBOS provides a paper ballot on good quality paper; the original ballot is stored, and available for recount. DREs provide a thermal paper trail printed with ink that fades with time, thus making recounts more difficult. With PBOS, multiple voters can be marking their ballots in privacy booths at the same time. It takes only 3 seconds for the scanner to record their votes. DREs can handle only one voter at a time, which may result in long waits to vote for voters who may have time pressure of family or work. In the event of a power failure, or machine failure, PBOS enable voters to continue to vote, and the ballot can be held for scanning in a locked box. If a DREs backup batteries fail, or the machine malfunctions, the voter is unable to vote.
With PBOS systems, the same ballot can be used for absentee voters, provisional voters, and the military. DRE systems require the use of paper ballots for those voters.
Expected lifetime: DREs have an expected lifetime of 5 years, and none carry warrantees for a longer period. Replacement and repairs after the warrantee has expired will be entirely the responsibility of the taxpayers of Schoharie County. OS have been in use for 20 years. The ones in Oklahoma have been in use for 14 years and are still going strong.
SUMMARY We have the opportunity to learn from the frustrating, expensive choices made by others. The experience of DREs has demonstrated that they are not trusted or liked by the public, and they have a history of malfunctions causing multiple problems for voters and election officials. Many New York newspapers have had editorials supporting PBOS systems, including the NY Times, the Times Union, Newsday, and the Oneonta Star. The NYT editorial of 9/6/07 called electronic voting an abysmal failure. DREs are new, untried systems, whereas PBOS systems have been in use for over 20 years with minimal difficulties.
PBOS systems are cheaper, more reliable, more secure, easier to transport and store, and enjoy greater public confidence than DREs. Please hold true to your resolution of 1/18/05, in which the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to express a preference for PBOS.
I urge the Board of Supervisors to see that our Election Commissioners do not make the costly mistake of choosing an electronic voting system, but that they act in the best interests of the voters and taxpayers and select the previously certified AutoMark ballot marking device, and PBOS.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Adair DeLamater
Sharon Springs
An Appeal to the Conscience of Everyone In this Room in the Name of the Democratic Process and Our Wallets
January 18, 2008, Remarks of Susan Spivack to the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors
Chairman VanWormer, Town Supervisors,
I thank you for the chance to be heard today. As the grandchild of immigrants, I was raised to believe that my very life depended on participating in and protecting this Democracy, and to cherish my right to Vote.
I am here to represent Peacemakers of Schoharie County’s Voting Integrity Project, and the citizens of this county who believe Electronic Voting Machines will endanger the reliability and integrity of our votes, and to advocate for a paper ballot/optical scan (PBOS) voting system for Schoharie County.
On November 18, 2005 this Board unanimously passed Resolution 82 in which you stated, “….the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors wishes to go on record that its preference in type of voting machine is a paper ballot/optical scan voting system” I thank all who voted for that resolution.
In 2007--NYS, the only State not in compliance with HAVA--The Help America Vote Act, began testing electronic voting and optical scan machines, and ballot marking devices (BMD’s) for the disabled. Not one electronic voting machine has yet been certified!
This December, Judge Sharpe ruled that all NYS counties must implement BMD’s (ballot marking devices) in all polling places by the fall ’08 election season.
Five days from now on January 23, the NYS Board of Elections (BOE) will release a list of voting equipment from which our Election Commissioners, Cliff Hay and Lew Wilson are charged to select a BMD for every polling place. February 8 is the decision deadline, but they CAN decide as early as January 23.
SO THE HOUR OF DECISION IS UPON US!
It is almost certain the PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED AutoMark BMD which is compatible with a paper ballot, will be on the State BOE list. But the State BOE recently redefined DRE's as Ballot Marking Devices if the vote counting function is disabled and the device prints a full size ballot. So it is certain that DRE’s will be on the list EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT REALLY BMD’S, ARE UNCERTIFIED AND CANNOT BE USED WITH PAPER BALLOTS.
Schoharie County usually needs only one voting machine per polling place. To choose a BMD created from a disabled, uncertified DRE, which is incompatible with an optical scan machine, is to make the unacceptable back-door decision to purchase uncertified DRE’s instead of a PBOS system. Over half of our county’s HAVA funds will be spent on these expensive Ballot Marking Devices. It is widely expected that the State BOE will hastily certify the already purchased DRE’s after the fact.
Our County Election Commissioners have repeatedly praised the LibertyVote DRE made by NEDAP. NEDAP has posted no profits for five years because their LibertyVote machines were discarded by Ireland, Holland, and Germany. Recently, Russia dropped electronic voting machines for paper ballots.
The following US States have decertified their DRE’s (in many or all districts) after spending millions of dollars purchasing them: Florida, California, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio. States in the process of changing over from DRE’s to PBOS systems include Colorado, Maryland, Kentucky.
We fear our County Commissioners despite all the recent news about the decertification of DRE’s in Europe and the US, will still chose DRE’s, even though the long delay by our State BOE has given us this great opportunity to avoid the mistakes made in other places!
In fact I want to enthusiastically proclaim your Ability and Responsibility as our County Supervisors to make decisions on what kind of voting system we will use:
1. The 2005 NY Election Reform and Modernization Act and the State BOE have declared that final voting machines decisions will be made at the County level by local Election Commissioners. This means you are a part of the process.
2. You as a Board must DECIDE NOW what voting system will best serve this county’s citizens, and which system we can best afford. We urge you to renew your commitment ASAP, today!! to the Paper Ballot Optical Scan voting system, and to demand that Lew Wilson and Cliff Hay choose the PBOS voting system and the AutoMark as our Ballot Marking Device. Madison County’s two Election Commissioners have already declared their intention to purchase PBOS systems for their county. If they can do it, our Commissioners can do it. You can tell them to do it. As your appointees, they answer to you.
3. If our Election Commissioners choose DRE’s, we expect you to refuse to authorize funding these expensive unreliable machines.
For years our Election officials have said they could not decide on a new voting system because the STATE BOE had not certified the machines. Some County Supervisors have told us, "It’s up to the Election Commissioners to make this decision, not me” We call this “passing the buck.”
As elected officials you are public servants, pledged to watch out for the political and fiscal health of your towns and the county as a whole. You have a responsibility (as we all do) for maintaining our democracy. You are also responsible for supervising the Election Commissioners you appoint and evaluating how they do their jobs.
To stand up to them if they insist on DRE voting machines when you want a PBOS system may prove to be:
· labor intensive
· time consuming
· and require you to take political risks, which may take courage.
But you have the opportunity here to secure the integrity of our vote, save your constituents untold hundreds of thousands of tax dollars over the long-term, and earn public honor for having the energy and courage to do the right thing. I suggest you begin by voting today to tell the Election Commissioners to consult with you before deciding on the Ballot Marking Device and delaying their decition to February 8 to give you time to consult with one another and let them know what you want. As our public servants we expect you to embrace this opportunity to preserve the right of every citizen to a verifiable, economical, user-friendly voting system.
Thank you for your time and your listening.
Last week two representatives of the Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project addressed the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors appealing to them to reaffirm their commitment to paper ballot/optical scan voting (PBOS).
Adair DeLamater and Sue Spivack were assertive and eloquent Friday morning.....and apparently effective in as much as the board again unanimously approved a resolution favoring a paper ballot voting system. They had first expressed such sentiment in the fall of 2005 following an intense lobbying effort and petition drive by the Peacemakers.
Supervisor Robert Mann of Blenheim Town was absent and did not vote.
The statements of the two VIP representatives are reproduced below.
Wayne
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 18, 2008
Remarks of Adair DeLamater to the Schoharie Board of Supervisors
Chairman VanWormer, Town Supervisors
I appreciate the opportunity to express to you my concerns about the type of voting system that will be chosen for Schoharie County. Time is short; the decision must be made by February 8, 2008. Our two Election Commissioners were appointed to their positions by the Board of Supervisors; you are responsible to see that they carry out their duties in the best interest of the voters and taxpayers of Schoharie County.
I would like to review the advantages and disadvantages of electronic voting systems vs. paper ballot/optical scanners. I will refer to electronic systems as DREs, and paper ballot/optical scanners as PBOS.
PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE: Multiple polls have demonstrated that the public prefers PBOS over DREs. In 2006, 69 million voters used OS ballots; 66 million used electronic equipment. Many countries and states that utilized DREs are replacing them with PBOS. New Mexico installed PBOS statewide in 2004. Maryland’s governor is trying to replace DREs with PBOS. All six New England states utilize PBOS or hand counted ballots in many election districts. California’s Sec of State decertified some DREs and will use hand counted ballots until scanners are deployed. Presently, over half the counties in California use PBOS systems. In Ohio and Colorado, Sec of State have decertified DREs and will substitute PBOS systems. A recent poll by the PBS program New York NOW provided the results that 0% of respondents favored DREs.
COSTS; DREs have higher costs than PBOS for initial purchase, transportation, secure climate controlled storage, and maintenance. A PBOS system can process more voters per machine than DREs. Thus, more machines (at $8,000 to $10,000 each) would be needed with a DRE system. Because DREs are very heavy (about 235 lbs each, as opposed to 19 to 39 lbs for OS), they require two people to move them on a wheeled device, and must be transported on a truck with a lift system. One person can carry a scanner, and they can be stacked for storage, thus requiring much less space in secure, climate controlled storage. In districts utilizing PBOS, local election staff transport the equipment. With DREs, software is a trade secret, and company officials program the DREs, test them, and count the ballots, without input from public election staff. There is an annual fee (approximately 12% of the contract) for continued use of the DREs. HAVA funds would cover the cost of OS and ballot marking devices for Schoharie; because a greater number of more expensive machines would be needed for a DRE system, the cost would greatly exceed the funds that will be available.
EASE OF USE With PBOS, the voter marks their ballot themselves, and can see what choices they have made before presenting the ballot for scanning. The scanner alerts any under vote or over vote, and the voter is able to correct the ballot in the case of an under vote, or is given a fresh ballot in the case of an over vote. This is not true of DREs; multiple sites have experienced problems with under votes, and over votes are rejected and not counted. PBOS provides a paper ballot on good quality paper; the original ballot is stored, and available for recount. DREs provide a thermal paper trail printed with ink that fades with time, thus making recounts more difficult. With PBOS, multiple voters can be marking their ballots in privacy booths at the same time. It takes only 3 seconds for the scanner to record their votes. DREs can handle only one voter at a time, which may result in long waits to vote for voters who may have time pressure of family or work. In the event of a power failure, or machine failure, PBOS enable voters to continue to vote, and the ballot can be held for scanning in a locked box. If a DREs backup batteries fail, or the machine malfunctions, the voter is unable to vote.
With PBOS systems, the same ballot can be used for absentee voters, provisional voters, and the military. DRE systems require the use of paper ballots for those voters.
Expected lifetime: DREs have an expected lifetime of 5 years, and none carry warrantees for a longer period. Replacement and repairs after the warrantee has expired will be entirely the responsibility of the taxpayers of Schoharie County. OS have been in use for 20 years. The ones in Oklahoma have been in use for 14 years and are still going strong.
SUMMARY We have the opportunity to learn from the frustrating, expensive choices made by others. The experience of DREs has demonstrated that they are not trusted or liked by the public, and they have a history of malfunctions causing multiple problems for voters and election officials. Many New York newspapers have had editorials supporting PBOS systems, including the NY Times, the Times Union, Newsday, and the Oneonta Star. The NYT editorial of 9/6/07 called electronic voting an abysmal failure. DREs are new, untried systems, whereas PBOS systems have been in use for over 20 years with minimal difficulties.
PBOS systems are cheaper, more reliable, more secure, easier to transport and store, and enjoy greater public confidence than DREs. Please hold true to your resolution of 1/18/05, in which the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to express a preference for PBOS.
I urge the Board of Supervisors to see that our Election Commissioners do not make the costly mistake of choosing an electronic voting system, but that they act in the best interests of the voters and taxpayers and select the previously certified AutoMark ballot marking device, and PBOS.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Adair DeLamater
Sharon Springs
An Appeal to the Conscience of Everyone In this Room in the Name of the Democratic Process and Our Wallets
January 18, 2008, Remarks of Susan Spivack to the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors
Chairman VanWormer, Town Supervisors,
I thank you for the chance to be heard today. As the grandchild of immigrants, I was raised to believe that my very life depended on participating in and protecting this Democracy, and to cherish my right to Vote.
I am here to represent Peacemakers of Schoharie County’s Voting Integrity Project, and the citizens of this county who believe Electronic Voting Machines will endanger the reliability and integrity of our votes, and to advocate for a paper ballot/optical scan (PBOS) voting system for Schoharie County.
On November 18, 2005 this Board unanimously passed Resolution 82 in which you stated, “….the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors wishes to go on record that its preference in type of voting machine is a paper ballot/optical scan voting system” I thank all who voted for that resolution.
In 2007--NYS, the only State not in compliance with HAVA--The Help America Vote Act, began testing electronic voting and optical scan machines, and ballot marking devices (BMD’s) for the disabled. Not one electronic voting machine has yet been certified!
This December, Judge Sharpe ruled that all NYS counties must implement BMD’s (ballot marking devices) in all polling places by the fall ’08 election season.
Five days from now on January 23, the NYS Board of Elections (BOE) will release a list of voting equipment from which our Election Commissioners, Cliff Hay and Lew Wilson are charged to select a BMD for every polling place. February 8 is the decision deadline, but they CAN decide as early as January 23.
SO THE HOUR OF DECISION IS UPON US!
It is almost certain the PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED AutoMark BMD which is compatible with a paper ballot, will be on the State BOE list. But the State BOE recently redefined DRE's as Ballot Marking Devices if the vote counting function is disabled and the device prints a full size ballot. So it is certain that DRE’s will be on the list EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT REALLY BMD’S, ARE UNCERTIFIED AND CANNOT BE USED WITH PAPER BALLOTS.
Schoharie County usually needs only one voting machine per polling place. To choose a BMD created from a disabled, uncertified DRE, which is incompatible with an optical scan machine, is to make the unacceptable back-door decision to purchase uncertified DRE’s instead of a PBOS system. Over half of our county’s HAVA funds will be spent on these expensive Ballot Marking Devices. It is widely expected that the State BOE will hastily certify the already purchased DRE’s after the fact.
Our County Election Commissioners have repeatedly praised the LibertyVote DRE made by NEDAP. NEDAP has posted no profits for five years because their LibertyVote machines were discarded by Ireland, Holland, and Germany. Recently, Russia dropped electronic voting machines for paper ballots.
The following US States have decertified their DRE’s (in many or all districts) after spending millions of dollars purchasing them: Florida, California, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio. States in the process of changing over from DRE’s to PBOS systems include Colorado, Maryland, Kentucky.
We fear our County Commissioners despite all the recent news about the decertification of DRE’s in Europe and the US, will still chose DRE’s, even though the long delay by our State BOE has given us this great opportunity to avoid the mistakes made in other places!
In fact I want to enthusiastically proclaim your Ability and Responsibility as our County Supervisors to make decisions on what kind of voting system we will use:
1. The 2005 NY Election Reform and Modernization Act and the State BOE have declared that final voting machines decisions will be made at the County level by local Election Commissioners. This means you are a part of the process.
2. You as a Board must DECIDE NOW what voting system will best serve this county’s citizens, and which system we can best afford. We urge you to renew your commitment ASAP, today!! to the Paper Ballot Optical Scan voting system, and to demand that Lew Wilson and Cliff Hay choose the PBOS voting system and the AutoMark as our Ballot Marking Device. Madison County’s two Election Commissioners have already declared their intention to purchase PBOS systems for their county. If they can do it, our Commissioners can do it. You can tell them to do it. As your appointees, they answer to you.
3. If our Election Commissioners choose DRE’s, we expect you to refuse to authorize funding these expensive unreliable machines.
For years our Election officials have said they could not decide on a new voting system because the STATE BOE had not certified the machines. Some County Supervisors have told us, "It’s up to the Election Commissioners to make this decision, not me” We call this “passing the buck.”
As elected officials you are public servants, pledged to watch out for the political and fiscal health of your towns and the county as a whole. You have a responsibility (as we all do) for maintaining our democracy. You are also responsible for supervising the Election Commissioners you appoint and evaluating how they do their jobs.
To stand up to them if they insist on DRE voting machines when you want a PBOS system may prove to be:
· labor intensive
· time consuming
· and require you to take political risks, which may take courage.
But you have the opportunity here to secure the integrity of our vote, save your constituents untold hundreds of thousands of tax dollars over the long-term, and earn public honor for having the energy and courage to do the right thing. I suggest you begin by voting today to tell the Election Commissioners to consult with you before deciding on the Ballot Marking Device and delaying their decition to February 8 to give you time to consult with one another and let them know what you want. As our public servants we expect you to embrace this opportunity to preserve the right of every citizen to a verifiable, economical, user-friendly voting system.
Thank you for your time and your listening.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Voting Equipment Selection
Now is the time for lawmakers to act
On 1/23, the NYS BOE will release a list of authorized but untested and uncertified voting equipment from which the Election Commissioners will select a Ballot Marking Device (BMD) to be deployed in every polling place.
County Election Commissioners are required to make their selection no later than 2/8 according to the timeline set by the state BOE. It is important to understand the selection might be made as early as 1/23.
It is almost certain that the very serviceable and previously certified AutoMark BMD will be on that list. The AutoMark is the BMD which is intended to paired with a paper ballot voting system to provide access for the disabled.
It is also very likely that one or more Direct Recording Electronic Voting Machines (DRE) will be on the list as well. In a disturbingly perverse move the state BOE recently agreed to allow the voting machine manufacturers to submit their DREs as BMDs if the vote counting function is disabled and the device prints a full size ballot.
I believe the above perverse ruling was made specifically to help DRE voting machine vendors such as Albany based Liberty Election Systems. We can expect a modified LibertyVote DRE to be on the list of authorized BMDs.
And it is also very likely Schoharie County's Election Commissioners Cliff Hay & Lew Wilson will select the LibertyVote DRE, or any machine other than the AutoMark, in order to avoid committing to a paper ballot voting system. I say “committing” because a major portion of the available HAVA funds will be expended on the BMDs mandated for 2008 deployment.
Re: committing to a system. Because the court ordered HAVA compliance plan requires devices to assist the disabled in every polling place, rural counties, like Schoharie with most polling places with only one voting machine, will effectively be committing to DREs if they choose an experimental BMD created from a DRE.
The Perverse Plan (as formulated by the E.C.s & vendors) goes like this:
A Make Believe BMD (MBBMD) created from a DRE is authorized by the state.
The ECs select the MBBMD and pay some fraction of the usual DRE price and deploys them in 2008.
The state BOE subsequently tests and certifies the DRE on which the MBBMD is based (no one believes the state would not certify machines that the counties have already purchased).
The vendor returns to the county reprograms the MBBMD machine to function as a full functioned DRE and collects the balance due, probably some additional premium fees, and sells the county what ever additional DREs the county E.C.s think they can afford.
The county deploys all the DREs in 2009 and everyone is happy:
Federal District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe will no longer feel ashamed to be a New Yorker and will sleep well again,
The Justice Dept. lawyers can report to the Bush administration criminal cabal that their mission is accomplished,
The NYS BOE Commissioners can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that they weathered this crisis without being thrown under the bus or into jail…..now all they need to remember is to keep their mouths shut and reap the rewards,
Bobby Witko of Liberty Election Services will have made his daddy proud - he was able to peddle a crappy voting machine that has been rejected in Ireland, The Netherlands and Germany… at an incredibly exaggerated price,
Nedap (manufacturer of the LibertyVote) can rejoice at being able to report to their stockholders their voting machine has been introduced into the USA market, and maybe even show some black ink for that division for the first time in five years. That black ink can’t help but be improved with each election cycle in the US….New York State has a bunch of very valuable electoral votes,
Cliff Hay and Lew Wilson will have broken into the big time. Now if anyone wants to buy a particular election outcome in Schoharie County they will have the means to deliver with much greater efficiency then ever before. Also, if someone is working a state or federal scam they will be able to demand their cut. AND hey, there’s no paper ballots - Happy times are here again!
The only people who might not get what they want is the little people who believe their vote counts - but then it’s only some of those little folk that might not get what they want since the bosses need only switch a few percent of the ballots. Those people who’s vote might get switched won’t know - and what they don’t know won’t hurt them - right?
The only recourse for the little people then is Civil Disobedience (CD) - I say the only recourse because I’m not a violent person. I can not speak for the rest of our citizens who might feel they are not represented because their votes are not being counted...we fought a war over this very problem once before didn't we.
What CD? How about something as simple as "Just Say No! These are our elections and it is our vote we're talking about. We should just say no to electronic voting!
Every citizen needs to take ownership of their individual ballot and demand we use the only system which makes it possible for the voter to mark their own ballot and see their ballot being recorded and counted, the paper ballot system.
I've been telling everyone I encounter that I will refuse to vote using an electronic voting machine. It is not hard to imagine that election administrators and poll workers will have little choice but to provide paper ballots if enough of us demand it. I've printed my own calling card with just that message on it - it works, I recommend it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
