Paper Ballot Warrior

Democracy's Gold Standard

2010-01-17T15:16:00.000-08:00

Are We There Yet?

Nationwide, statewide and here at home in Schoharie County we've muddled through several years of election integrity advocacy, debate and discussion.

Early on the discussion was framed as what kind of equipment would replace the lever machines. Legislators, election officials and of course, equipment manufacturers, shared a predeliction for machinery. Human factors engineering, systems dynamics, questions such as will people be able to use the machines and can the results be trusted, only entered the debate after citizen activists made their voices heard.

This year the officially sanctioned system, Paper Ballot Optical Scan (PBOS), will be deployed throughout the state. Advocacy groups of all sorts still have criticisms, suggestions, demands and other significant unmet desires.

There are folks threatening litigation to prevent deployment of the scanners. They distrust electronic vote counting and want to keep the lever machines. There are math wizards who claim the present law doesn't do audits right. They claim to have better formulas which would adjust audits to assure discovery of election tampering. The democracy protectors and anticorporatists say we have to keep the big money interests out of our elections.

And there are some of us who advocate for a simple and logical compromise that could satisfy almost everyone. That process is the one which has been described as Democracy's Gold Standard* by several prominent election integrity advocates.

The process; paper ballots, 100% hand-counted, at the polling place immediately following closing of the polls, and the ballot tally posted at the polling place for citizens to compare to official results.

The Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project has been advocating just this process for the past few years**. In as much as the optical scanners have been bought and paid for, and will be fully deployed this year, we are presented with an opportunity to do the Gold Standard one better. Hand count the paper ballots and post the results as suggested. Then use the scanner count as an automatic, contemporaneous electronic audit of the hand count

Some of the NY counties which participated in the PBOS pilot project this past November, including Schoharie County, did just that. Recently, one of our own Election Commissioners acknowledged that hand counting paper ballots in our county's low population election districts would not be difficult.

So it seems we're almost there. Schoharie County could easily implement Democracy's Gold Standard ballot counting process this year and set a new record for transparency, citizen participation and election integrity. Let's do it!

Letter to Editor 29 November 2009

2009-12-08T15:18:00.000-08:00

Letter to editor concerning voter turnout

To The Editor
The Times-Journal

Last week’s T-J editorial included notice of local election contests which were decided by slim margins and an invitation to those who didn’t vote this year to take part next November. The editorial emphasized how important one vote can be in deciding a contest.

I share the editor’s sentiments concerning voting responsibilities and do also encourage greater citizen participation in elections, however, such annual lamentations are not likely to improve matters much. More attention by local government, election administrators and the media will be needed to solve the low voter participation problem.

The Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project has been attempting to address these issues. Last year we requested to meet with the Election Commissioners to discuss the creation of a Citizen Advisory Board for Election Administration. We had hoped such an advisory board could be of assistance to both the Board of Elections and the Board of supervisors. The Commissioners refused to meet with us and the Supervisors did not carry the issue forward.

This past June The Voting Integrity Project released an analysis* of voter registration and voter turnout statistics for several upstate counties including Schoharie County. The numbers are troubling: One in four eligible Schoharie citizens is not registered to vote. Factor in low turnout percentages and contests or propositions can be decided by a minority of the citizens. As of this writing there has been no announcement of Board of Elections or Board of Supervisors action on this problem.

Members of the Voting Integrity Project were present at the Board of Supervisors meeting this month. Our purpose was to announce initiation of a survey of county Boards of Elections administration practices, resources and accessibility. We asked the Board of Supervisors to assure us that the Schoharie County Board of Elections will respond to the survey. We did not receive any such assurances from the Supervisors but remain hopeful the Election Commissioners will return the survey.

This small group of citizen volunteers is doing their part to make democracy work. We need government and the media to do their part if we are to succeed.

Wayne Stinson, Coordinator
The Voting Integrity Project

Analysis of Voter Registration Performance (http://paperballotwarrior.blogspot.com)
The Voting Integrity Project, 30 June 2009.

Voting Integrity Project Update

2009-12-08T14:15:00.000-08:00

6 December 2009 report to The Peacemakers,

Wayne Stinson and Katherine Hawkins attended the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors meeting in November. Privilege of the floor had been requested via Summit Town Supervisor Harold Vroman, however, when the VIP presenters arrived they discovered no agenda notation to that effect. Fortunately, the BOS meeting included a continuation of the budget comment period so Wayne was able to address the board anyway.

We reminded the board of our earlier attempts to meet with the Election Commissioners (Nov. '08 - March '09) to propose establishment of a Citizen Advisory Board for Election Administration and the Commissioners' refusal to meet with us.

We reminded the board of our earlier research and analysis of voter registration and voter turnout statistics which revealed lower voter registration percentages in Schoharie County compared to five other demographically similar NY counties, and the disturbing fact that one in four eligible Schoharie County citizens is not registered to vote.

We notified the board of our most recent research effort, a survey of twelve county Boards of Elections (10 Nov. '09) which asks the ECs to report administration practices, department resources and accessibility data. We asked the Board of Supervisors to assure us that our Board of Elections would respond to the survey. We have received no such assurances and the Schoharie county Election Commissioners have so far not responded.

So far three counties have returned surveys. we will begin contacting those counties which have not yet returned the survey to remind them and to encourage participation. If personal contacts fail to gain cooperation the only remaining option would be Freedom of Information Law demands. No decision has been made as to this course.

Schoharie County BOE participated in the so-called pilot project use of the new voting equipment last month. The Sequoia-Dominion ImageCast machines were used in Schoharie Town election districts only. We have been told our BOE chose to do a 100% hand count of the paper ballots in those districts. If this is true they deserve credit for doing the right thing and something the state board didn't have the good sense or courage to require. We are not aware of any problems occurring with the new equipment in Schoharie Town pilot project.

VIP Survey of County BOE

2009-11-06T11:10:00.000-08:00

Friends

The cover letter and survey instrument pasted here were mailed the second week of November.

This initial distribution to a small number of county BOEs is intended to be a trial application which we hope will help us further refine the instrument in preparation for a larger survey.

Wayne

The cover letter:

The Voting Integrity Project
A public interest initiative of The Peacemakers of Schoharie County
P.O. Box 214, Cobleskill, NY 12043

10 November 2009

«Dem EC», «Commissioner»
«Rep EC», «Commissioner»
«County»
«BOE»
«Address»
«City» «State + Zip»

Re: Local Boards of Elections Survey

Election Commissioners,

The Peacemakers of Schoharie County is an all volunteer non-partisan citizen organization dedicated to promoting peace and social justice which has been active for over twenty years. The Voting Integrity Project of the Peacemakers has worked for more trustworthy elections for the past four years and is most recognized for support of paper ballot voting and opposition to unauditable electronic voting machines.

The Voting Integrity Project is initiating this survey of a small number of County Boards of Elections to document administration practices, department resources and public accessibility. Your Board Of Elections has been selected for this survey because of your county’s population demographics.

This initial survey will be limited to several low population counties to test the serviceability of the survey instrument and to evaluate the potential for a more expansive inquiry in the future.

We hope you will not find our brief questionnaire too time consuming or intrusive. We have kept it short so as to not substantially interfere with your duties. A survey report will be provided to each of the participants as soon as it becomes available.

Please contact us with any questions you might have. We encourage you to provide commentary on the survey itself if you wish. Write us at: stinson@midtel.net .

Thank you for your cooperation,

Wayne R. Stinson, Coordinator

The Survey

2009-11-06T10:56:00.000-08:00

A Failure of Democracy?

2009-10-08T09:46:00.000-07:00

It’s been all over the news of late, the blatant and massive election fraud during the recent Afghanistan elections. We are allowed to recognize it over there because…..well, it’s over there. So let’s talk about it. We are told that bringing democracy to the people of Afghanistan is one of our goals, priority unknown, of eight years of death and destruction we call Operation Enduring Freedom.

From our vantage point it’s quite easy to assign blame for this “democracy failure.” Some will observe that the Afghan culture is just not ready for democracy, or that three decades of occupations and civil war have caused the populace to become so cynical as to prevent ideals such as democracy from taking root. Poppycock! What we have here is a failure of leadership by American political actors, the ones that were so cynical as to claim to want to bring democracy to the Afghan people, and then enthusiastically used military force to make whatever they wanted to happen, happen.

You might sense that I doubt the U.S. motives in Afghanistan…of course I do. And you might wonder what all this has to do with election integrity here in Schoharie county. I’ll explain.

Several months back the Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project (VIP) sought to introduce the concept of a Citizens’ Advisory Board for Election Administration (Challenge Provincial Power: The Test) to the County Board of Supervisors (BOS). Without going into too much detail I’ll simply report that we were rebuffed by both the Board of Supervisors Rules & Legislation Committee and the Election Commissioners. They simply refused to talk to us. Was it a distaste for the goals of such a board or was it dislike of individuals associated with the effort? We can’t be sure but there are clues we can follow.

One of the proposed activities of the CABEA was fact finding which could assist the Board of Elections (BOE). One specific action we suggested was research and activities to expand the number of registered voters. Lacking the cooperation of the BOS and the BOE we decided to go forward with a simple research effort which compared Schoharie County with five other counties of similar demographics (Analysis of Voter Registration Performance). What we discovered was that Schoharie County had a smaller percentage of eligible citizens registered to vote than the other counties. Approximately one in four voting age Schoharie citizens is not registered.

The VIP report was published, and reported, and delivered to the BOS in June of this year. There has been no reaction from the BOS. There has been no reaction from the BOE. And, other than printing the press release we provided, there has been no attention from the press. Why?

The clues: On the occasion of our meeting with the R&L Committee to introduce the CABEA concept, one Supervisor responded to our proposal to expand the franchise to more Schoharie citizens by saying she thought “… we would be better off if they didn’t vote.” Apparently this legislator believes there is a segment of Schoharie County citizens who shouldn’t be encouraged to register and vote. On another occasion, a Supervisor from one of the largest towns in the county, responded with similar sentiments to a constituent’s query about the report.

The tally: Two County Supervisors who are either entirely clueless as to what democracy is or arrogant enough to dismiss it (and so indiscreet as to express their prejudice). Another handful of Supervisors lacking in courage or conviction to do the right thing. Two Election Commissioners dumb enough and arrogant enough that they believe they don’t need to attend to some of their responsibilities. A pair of Deputy Election Commissioners without sufficient autonomy or initiative to act. The remainder of the Board of Supervisors who lacked the initiative to spur action by a county department which is obviously failing in its mission. And a newspaper editor without the courage or initiative to act on a story with significance to the functioning of our democracy.

What do these actors have in common? They occupy leadership positions. They have responsibilities and they failed to fulfill those responsibilities. Is this a failure of democracy? I don’t think so! Democracy is fading for sure but as a concept, an ideal, it can not fail. It can be intentionally suppressed by those with elitist sentiments or allowed to suffocate through ignorance and inattention, but it can not fail.

The lesson: Democracy requires leadership by the actors previously identified. For democracy to thrive requires leaders who are actually committed to democratic egalitarian ideals. Our job is to train the people we allow in power…...and to demand of them stronger support of these ideals. If we had such leaders we would not be killing Afghans and we would already have universal health care. With such leaders here in Schoharie County we might have even created a Citizen Advisory Board for Election Administration.

Oh yeah, about the Afghanistan elections: Mr. Karzi’s “win” in the past two Afghanistan elections is to Bush’s “win” in 2000 and 2004 here. In both cases local war lords screwed with the electorate, voting machines, polling places, ballots and ballot tallies to shape “democracy” the way they wanted it.

Wayne

Spivack-BOE.7.3.09.Ltr

2009-07-08T18:17:00.000-07:00

Sue Spivack Interrogates County BOE

July 3, 2009

Mr. Clifford C. Hay, Commissioner and
Mr. Lewis L. Wilson, Commissioner
Schoharie County Board of Elections
PO Box 99
Schoharie, NY 12157

Dear Mr. Hay and Mr. Wilson:

I was glad to receive your letter of May 21, 2009 a few days before I left Cobleskill for an extended trip. Having arrived home and reviewed my April 21 questions and studied your responses, I’m disappointed to find some of your answers incomplete and in one instance inaccurate and misleading.

Here are my comments:

General Questions about the County Board Administration:
Your statement of the Schoharie County BOE goals is helpful and useful to me as far as it goes. However the NY State BOE Mission Statement (http://www.elections.state.ny.us/AboutSBOE.html) states in part “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 (my emphasis).” It seems to me that every NYS County Board of Elections is therefore also charged with this mission—to enhance “voter participation in elections.” Please add this to your statement of goals and act accordingly.

Aside from listing your salaries, your statement that qualifications for Commissioners are set by the NYS Election Law is pretty much a non-answer. You give no real job description which would let me know such things as how many meetings with the NY State Board of Elections you must attend each year, how many education and/or training sessions you participate in as new means of voting and counting votes (voting machines, BMD, paper ballots—hand counting vs optical scan machines, etc, are being considered and purchased), how much time (per week/per month?) you spend in the County Board of Election office taking care of Schoharie County election business, and approximately how many days/hours a week/month you put in actually on the job. Please reanswer this question.

Questions about Election Statistics for 2004, 2006, 2008

You say you do not create statistical analyses of the voters. If you spent any time doing statistical studies of our county’s population and the numbers of voters, and sought to seriously compare our participation with NY State and the Nation, you would soon notice how many eligible voters there are compared to the number of registered voters—and realize these are two very different numbers (see comments below for more on this).

I am glad to learn that you file an Annual Report with the NYS Board of Elections. However in the interests of ease of citizen access, and open government and transparency, I ask that you please post these reports on the Board of Election website. Many people do not have the money to pay for printed copies. Every one has free access to the internet at the public libraries. I understand you possess only printed copies of these reports on hand—however they can be easily scanned into a pdf file and posted.

You state that “All eligible voters are registered voters.” and. “Traditionally, Schoharie County voter participation has been higher than either NYS or the US, as seen in the chart below.” Unfortunately your response in paragraph #3 equating eligible and registered voters is completely untrue, which makes the table in paragraph #4 entirely misleading. Eligible Voters are all US citizens 18 years and older who reside in Schoharie County. Registered Voters are those Eligible Voters who have filled out the voter registration form and been OK’d by the County Board of Elections as a Registered Voter.

In the column under Schoharie County, your table gives the percentage of Registered Voters who actually voted in those elections. In the columns under New York and US you are quoting percentages of Eligible Voters who actually voted. You are comparing apples and oranges. (See attached Sheet A with statistics from the US Census Bureau and other sources for more detailed information).

In 2007 Schoharie County had an estimated eligible voting population of 25,658 of whom 19,583 citizens were registered. We had an actual turnout of 14,558 voters which means while 74.3% of Registered Voters voted, only 56.7% of Eligible Voters actually voted. Note how close this 56.7% statistic is to the 2008 New York and US turnout. (see Sheet B-attached table with data sourced from the State BOE and/or the Census Bureau)

Therefore, if you look at the entire population of eligible voters, it is not true that Schoharie County voter participation is higher than either NYS or the US. This response conceals the need in Schoharie County to do much more voter education and voter registration outreach and to involve more eligible voters in the democratic process, in order to “enhance voter participation in elections.”

Re: your voter registration outreach efforts, I’m glad to know all that you are doing. However, since there is an obvious need to increase voter registration (see previous comments), I suggest that instead of waiting for any school or organization to request a presentation from you, that you energetically OFFER these programs to every high school government class in the County. I suggest that you call for citizen volunteers to help you do this kind of outreach to the following groups as well:

· Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of Schoharie County
· Community organizations such as Eagles, Elks, Rotary
· All Veteran’s groups, Business Groups and Libraries
· Voter Registration Tables outside Wal-Mart and Price Chopper and on the SUNY Cobleskill campus

Questions about the November 2009 Election

Please let me know what districts will participate in the OPSCAN Pilot Program. Will you be doing any public education in these districts to prepare voters to use the optical scan machines for the very first time? I believe you should.

I think a pilot project is usually a good thing. However as you have stated, the Op-Scan devices are not certified, therefore I urge you to make sure in every district where they are used that the paper ballots are hand counted and stand as the vote of record. This will provide an excellent and necessary test of the functioning of the Op-Scan machines. I advocate that this be done in OPSCAN Pilot Program districts state-wide.

Local BOE’s are not required to buy from state contract. Since privacy voting booths are not a tested and certified election device, you will not be told what to buy. By waiting for the State OGS to make a choice, I am concerned that more money than necessary will be spent to purchase privacy booths. Schoharie County is already experiencing financial difficulties. I urge you to research simple and inexpensive ways of assembling privacy booths out of tables which the county already owns and cardboard dividers. When you have decided what privacy booths you will be purchasing/assembling, please inform me of the costs.

I urge you to actively recruit poll workers in the same ways (perhaps at the same places and times) you seek to register new voters—by making presentations to high school government classes, to community organizations, at the County Fair, or other places where many local people congregate. There was/may still be some grant money available from the Federal government for recruitment of college students as inspectors. There has been state legislation to allow high school students over 17 years to participate as well. To involve young people in the election process should be a prime goal if we hope to attract young people to the polls.

Final comments

I am a person who values the right to vote, the need to maintain a vigorous and open electoral system, and a system of voting that is affordable, trustworthy and reliable. These are goals I would like to believe you share.. I am a member of the Voting Integrity Project and hoped that you would be open to discussing the formation of a Citizen’s Advisory Board to help accomplish the goals of increasing voter registration and voter participation in elections and self-governance.

To me our democracy is only as healthy and strong as its roots in local districts. When only a little over half the eligible voters turn out for major elections, and far less than half appear at the polls in off-years, I believe our democracy is in trouble. I am also deeply concerned that we are a County already struggling to make ends meet and facing all kinds of budget cuts. I believe that the costs in future years of maintaining and renewing machines and software, and paying corporate fees for Optical Scanners whose inner workings are proprietary secrets will drain County funds away from other important public needs.

I advocate for hand counting of all paper ballots when the time comes that the lever machines are finally abandoned, and even discarding the optical scan machines if they prove inaccurate and unreliable, and (as they already seem to be), prohibitively expensive.

I will continue to try to open a dialogue with you and the County Supervisors on these issues and topics. I believe that all of you in public service must hold in your hearts some of the same ideals as I do in this land of free speech and free people:

· that the more people who are involved in decision making, the more the will of all the people will be carried out,
· and the way we make sure our vote is fair and accurate in our local districts determines the fate of the whole nation.

There must be a way to create a government of the people, by the people and for the people, right here in Schoharie County. I look forward to your response to this letter.

Respectfully,

Susan Spivack

SHEET A Statistics on Eligible, Registered and actual Voters

2004 STATISTICS
USA
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cps2004/tab04c.xls
percent of eligible voters (citizen-age18+) registered 72.1%
percent of eligible voters (citizen-18+) voted 63.8%

New York State
percent of eligible voters (citizen-age18+) registered 67.5%
percent of eligible voters (citizen-18+) voted 60.2%

2006 STATISTICS
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/cps2006/tab04a.xls
USA
percent of eligible voters (citizen-age18+) registered 67.6%
percent of eligible voters (citizen-18+) voted 47.8%

New York State
percent of elegible voters (citizen-age18+) registered 56.6%
percent of eligible voters (citizen-18+) voted 37.6%

2008 STATISTICS
USA
percent of eligible voters (age18+) registered 73.5%
satoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-11-02-vote_N.html
percent of eligible voters (citizen-age18+) voted 62.3% http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html

New York State
percent of eligible voters (18+) registered 91.3% http://elections.gmu.edu/Registration_2008G.html

percent of eligible voters (citizen-age18+) voted 58.6%http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html

Population & Voter Registration Charts

2009-07-05T11:19:00.000-07:00

Challenge Provincial Power: The Test

2009-07-05T07:36:00.000-07:00

On Quixotic Attempts to Challenge Provincial Power

Select the answer which best describes the actions of the various public officials as set forth in the following paragraphs.

A- Arrogance B- Ignorance
C- Malfeasance D- All of the above

In the fall of 2008 The Voting Integrity Project requested a meeting with the Board of Supervisors subcommittee responsible for oversight of the Board of Elections. We reasoned that, since there was a subcommittee charged with elections oversight and recognizing there was a risk Election Commissioners might not want to meet with representatives of an election integrity advocacy group, that it would be both practical and respectful to recognize the subcommittee’s authority and responsibilities.

We had hoped the members of the Rules and Legislation subcommittee would appreciate that a Citizens’ Advisory Board for Election Administration (CABEA) could be an asset in the accomplishment of their oversight duties while at the same time assisting the BOE in various ways.

Following our initial meeting with the Rules & Legislation Committee months passed while we waited for a follow-up meeting with Board of Elections representatives to be arranged by the committee Chairman. First we were told one or the other Commissioner was in Florida for the winter. Then, finally after more than three months, the committee Chairman returned our calls. He reported that the Election Commissioners refused to meet with us, and…..that the Rules and Legislation Committee was in agreement with the Commissioners’ decision.

Since the Chairman delivered his message through a third party it was not immediately clear with whom the Election Commissioners were refusing to meet. I needed to know were the Commissioners just refusing to meet with curious and annoying citizens, or were they arrogant enough to refuse to meet with the oversight committee for the purpose of hearing the annoying citizens? Or could it be, that when presented with a threat that both the legislators and the Election Commissioners were loathe to deal with, a mutually agreed upon defense was needed: No!

Some might say the Quixotic citizens failed to recognize the unofficial power relationships at play. There’s a long-standing practice in Schoharie County for the Board of Supervisors to appoint the chairpersons of the county partisan committees as Election Commissioners….regardless of the individual’s experience, skills or abilities. Such is the nature of a feudal patronage system. So it seems that the elected legislators feel greater allegiance to their partisan leadership than to the citizens they are elected to represent.

We suspected that might be the case. That is why we chose to engage the legislative committee. What we misjudged was the timidity of the lawmakers. We had expected to have at least one meeting with the Election Commissioners before they rejected our proposal. It was expected that engagement of the legislative subcommittee would guarantee that opportunity. I suppose we should have known better. Historically, there has been no evidence of legislative oversight. In fact, it more often seems that the Board of Elections leads the subcommittee. We have attended Rules & Legislation Committee meetings which were initiated by the Board of Elections staff, held in the Board of Elections office and organized with an agenda prepared by the Board of Elections staff.

So it seems we might be paddling upstream. I’m OK with that. Jim Hightower is fond of saying that even a dead fish can go with the flow. The Voting Integrity Project folks are very alive and still paddling. Check out the following postings for further clarification of our recent efforts.

Analysis of Voter Registration Performance

2009-07-05T07:18:00.000-07:00

A Performance Analysis of the Schoharie County Board of Elections

Introduction: Late last fall, at a meeting of Voting Integrity Project representatives and the Board of Supervisors Rules & Legislation Committee, it was discovered that the committee does not receive regular reports from the Board of Elections Department or the Election Commissioners. We know that the Election Commissioners have addressed the Board of Supervisors when specific circumstances suggest the need to do so, but there have not been periodic reports of performance parameters which the Board of Supervisors, as an oversight body, should receive.

When considering performance evaluation of a governmental unit it is important to understand the mission of that unit. An initial inquiry to the county Board of Elections revealed that the unit does not have a written mission statement. Thus we have chosen to use the New York State Board of Elections Mission Statement as a guide for our evaluation effort. That document closes with this statement: “…the board is charged with the preservation of citizen confidence in the democratic process and enhancement in voter participation in elections." (emphasis added).

The following is offered as both an initial evaluation and a suggested format for future reporting which might serve the needs of the Board of Elections and Board of Supervisors.

Voting Statistics Analysis: This report offers analysis of election data for Schoharie County and several other New York counties, which we hope will serve to identify needed reforms or policy changes.

It will consider population demographics, voter registration numbers, voter turnout and certain other voter behaviors for the past five even-year election cycles while comparing Schoharie County to five other counties of similar population numbers and rural character: Allegany, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware and Essex.

The following statistics were sourced from the U.S. Census Bureau and the New York State Board of Elections or calculated from similarly sourced statistics: (see charts in subsequent post)

Estimated total county population (Est. Pop. Herein)
Estimated 18 years or older county population (eligible voters or EV herein)
County total registered voters (RV)
Recorded voter turnout (TO)
Under vote (UV) (most election results do not report under votes or “blank” as a singular statistic. Instead they offer a total of “blank, void & scattering.” We have chosen to use this number to represent the under vote since void and scattering are only a small percentage of the total.

2008 Voting Statistics: The following table (see subsequent post) is provided for those who want to verify the math or logic of our calculations. Similar data and calculations were used throughout our investigation to provide added statistics and inform our findings.

What we’ve learned There are no big surprises here. Schoharie County seems to chart near the other counties in most categories throughout 2000-2008. This is not say there is no room for improvement, there certainly is. It just means that Schoharie County is not alone and that other counties exhibit similar demographic patterns.

Population Changes: Schoharie County does stand out among the sampled counties in one respect, it has gained a few hundred in total population since 2000 while the other counties have lost significant numbers. Note, however, the across the board increase in Eligible Voters despite population losses in the other counties. These numbers indicate that voter registration efforts were significantly more successful in these counties than they were in Schoharie County.

Registered Voters: Schoharie County, with 76.3% of eligible voters registered, ranks second from last to Allegany’s 73.4%. The other counties were all in the low 80th percentile except for top ranking Essex County with 88.7% registered. In Schoharie County one in four eligible voters is not registered. Only Allegany County had a higher percentage with 26.5%. All the other counties have unregistered percentages at least five points lower. Raising the percentage of eligible voters registered clearly should be a goal for Schoharie County.

Voter Turnout: With respect to voter turnout Schoharie County came out on top with 74.3% of registered voters showing up at the polls. We led the other counties by as much as 10 points. However, if the turnout is calculated as a percentage of eligible voters Schoharie County falls in the middle at 56.7%. Obviously the turnout numbers are directly informed by the eligible voters and registered voters statistics.

Under Votes: The 2008 Presidential under vote was very low among the sampled counties. All six counties registered percentages near 1%. But this is not the whole story.

The 2008 general election included a proposition concerning civil service law changes to benefit military veterans. The under vote statistics for this proposition are very telling. Relative to the other counties sampled Schoharie County stood out with the lowest percentage, 57.1%. The other counties ranged from 61.3% to 65.1%. These differences are less instructive than the magnitude of the under votes in all jurisdictions.

Absent the opportunity to question voters we can only speculate as to the causes for such a large number of voters failing to register an opinion on the proposition. It seems likely many voters either didn’t know there was a proposition on the ballot or didn’t have enough information to make a decision. In either case this high under vote seems to indicate a need for increased public education concerning ballot contents and the issues they represent. We believe citizens who are made aware of issues and ballot questions will want to make their opinion known. If we are correct in this assumption then simply paying attention to informing the public will result in greater turnout and fewer under votes.

Mandates: Another statistic which should be a cause for concern is the total of under votes plus the unregistered eligible voters number. In some circumstances this statistic could call into question the legitimacy of a candidate’s selection or the true status of a proposition.

In 2008 the Schoharie County unregistered EV population was 6075. This number of citizens not empowered to vote added to the 8318 under vote on the proposition equals 56% of the whole EV population. Thus the decision for this proposition was made by only 44% of Schoharie County’s eligible voters.

This calculation might not be as significant when considering a national question such as the aforementioned 2008 proposition. However, when the vote concerns a county question or candidate this calculation would be much more important. A local political candidate elected with less than 50% of eligible voters could be said to have not received a mandate. Likewise a ballot question “decided” by less than a majority of the citizens entitled to vote could be subject to challenge.

Observations & Recommendations: The numbers tell us there is a large group of Schoharie County citizens who are not participating in their governance. Many of these citizens could be drawn into greater community involvement, participation in our democratic system and possibly even active political life, if they were invited to become registered voters. This is important, full participation is necessary for democracy to work.

It is not appropriate or constructive to assume that all the unregistered eligible voters remain so of their own volition. Among the most common responses from citizens as to why they don’t vote are “I don’t know anything about the candidates” or “I don’t understand politics.” The relative stability of the statistics seem to indicate that voter registration efforts up to now have not been successful, or that there has been no actual effort made to increase voter rolls. In either case it seems obvious that our voter registration outreach needs to be revised and expanded. Newspapers, civic groups, churches, government agencies, and advocacy groups, all need to be drawn into a coordinated community effort to register citizens as voters.

The statistics also present a powerful argument that present efforts to inform citizens concerning candidates and ballot questions are inadequate. Responsibility for informing the public should not be left only to the political candidates and their supporting partisan organizations. There is a role for government and the media in this effort as well. In years past sample ballots were printed in the newspaper. This practice should be revived. We are also aware of some jurisdictions which actually mail sample ballots to each household prior to election day. Such an effort could be made part of the present post card verification process. For such a mailing to be fruitful as a voter registration effort it will have to be posted to all households early enough to facilitate registration. Radio and cable television must also be utilized to familiarize voters with the candidates and issues.

The voter education effort should be the corner stone of any effort to increase voter registration and voter participation. We believe, that having been adequately informed of the candidates and issues, more citizens will want to be registered and will be motivated to go to the polls on election day.

Unanswered Questions: Typical of such an inquiry this investigation raised more questions than it answered. There is much more work to be done.

We have documented differences but have not tried to discover the causes or reasons beyond what is obvious from the numbers. It could be very informative to compare the administrative structures of the several county governments and their respective Boards of Elections. Is there a County Administrator? Is there a legislative oversight committee? What is the Board of Elections staffing? Is there a professional administration culture prevalent in the county government, including the Board of Elections? For example, is there an administrator or director of the Board of Elections Department and does the department have a written procedure manual with job descriptions and a mission statement? It would also be interesting to compare the media services, community organizations, income levels and government services available in each county.

It’s hard to know what you do not know until you look and ask. We encourage the Board of Supervisors to undertake similar investigations regularly. The research is not very time consuming or difficult. Much of the information is readily available in the public domain. If there is one outcome we would like to see above all else it is that the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors pay more attention to such looking and asking.

This small study has revealed the need for action on a couple of fronts. The Voting Integrity Project hopes that this report points the way forward and assists both the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Elections in the execution of their duties.

Significant Findings:

“Note, however, the across the board increase in Eligible Voters despite population losses in the other counties. These numbers indicate that voter registration efforts were significantly more successful in these counties than they were in Schoharie County.”

“The numbers tell us there is a large group of Schoharie County citizens who are not participating in their governance.” “In Schoharie County one in four eligible voters is not registered.” “Raising the percentage of eligible voters registered clearly should be a goal for Schoharie County.”

“…this high under vote seems to indicate a need for increased public education concerning ballot contents and the issues they represent.”

“…it seems obvious that our voter registration outreach needs to be revised and expanded.”

Voting Study Press Release

2009-07-05T07:15:00.001-07:00

Voting Integrity Group Releases Elections Study

For Immediate Release: 30 June 2009

Contacts: W. Stinson, 518.287.1463, airhead@midtel.net
S. Spivak, 518.234.3840, sspivack@nycap.rr.com

The Voting Integrity Project, an initiative of the Peacemakers of Schoharie County, has published a performance critique of the county Board of Elections. The study compares Schoharie County voter registration, election turnout statistics and other data with those of five other upstate counties with similar population numbers: Allegany, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware and Essex.

The group has been outspoken in its advocacy for secure paper ballot voting, and against the so-called touch-screen electronic voting machines, for the past few years. “It’s not good enough to have trustworthy voting systems. For democracy to thrive citizens must be informed, engaged and actually go to the polls.” said Voting Integrity Project Coordinator Wayne Stinson. “We have begun to look at what needs to be done to improve citizen participation.” he continued.

Representatives of the Voting Integrity Project had met with Schoharie County Supervisors last fall to propose creation of a Citizens’ Advisory Board for Election Administration but the initiative was blocked when Election Commissioners refused to meet with the group. “It was very frustrating to have the Election Commissioners refuse to even listen to our proposal and disappointing that the Supervisors were not willing to move the process forward.” said Project member Susan Spivack.

The Voting Integrity Project has decided to continue their efforts without the cooperation of the Board of Elections or the Election Commissioners. “We will do what we can to identify problems and develop suggestions for correction or improvements. We would have liked to have the Board of Elections cooperation but we will still be able to provide the Supervisors with useful information.” Stinson said.

The report is critical of the Schoharie County Board of Elections voter registration efforts stating “The numbers tell us there is a large group of Schoharie County citizens who are not participating in their governance. …one in four eligible voters is not registered.” It also noted “[The] numbers indicate that voter registration efforts were significantly more successful in [the other] counties than they were in Schoharie County. Raising the percentage of eligible voters registered clearly should be a goal for Schoharie County. …our voter registration outreach needs to be revised and expanded”

The study also found “…[the] high undervote (instances where a voter does not indicate a choice) seems to indicate a need for increased public education concerning ballot contents and the issues they represent.”

6.25.09 Letter to Board of Supervisors

2009-07-05T07:05:00.000-07:00

The Schoharie County Board of Supervisors
Post Office Box 429
Schoharie, NY 12157

Honorable Supervisors,

The Voting Integrity Project is committed to supporting election integrity and strengthening our democracy. This we endeavor to accomplish through promotion of secure voting technologies and practices, advocacy for an informed and engaged electorate, and expansion of the franchise.

We had been working for several months to initiate a conversation with the Schoharie County Board of Elections and the county Board of Supervisors concerning the creation of a Citizen Advisory Board for Election Administration.

We began by requesting a meeting with the Board of Supervisors subcommittee responsible for oversight of the Board of Elections Department. We reasoned that, since there was a subcommittee charged with elections oversight it would be the logical starting point. It also seemed respectful and practical to recognize the subcommittee’s authority and introduce our proposal to them first.

We had hoped the Rules and Legislation subcommittee would appreciate that a Citizen Advisory Committee could be an aid in the accomplishment of their oversight responsibilities while at the same time assisting the Board of Elections. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen that way.

After our initial meeting with the Rules & Legislation Committee months passed while we waited for a follow-up meeting with Board of Elections representatives to be arranged by the committee Chairman. Finally, after more than three months, the R&L Chairman advised that the Election Commissioners had refused to meet with us and that the Rules and Legislation Committee was in agreement with their decision.

While it is very disappointing to be unable to engage county legislators and department heads as we had hoped, the Voting Integrity Project will nevertheless continue to strive for improved election integrity, voter confidence and citizen participation in the democratic process.

In the next few months the Voting Integrity Project will offer the Board of Supervisors observations and specific suggestions concerning election administration which we hope will be received in the same spirit as they are offered, a spirit of community, shared responsibility and respect for democratic principles.

For the Voting Integrity Project, Peacemakers Action Committee Co-signers

Susan Spivack
Nancy Sheehan
Katherine Hawkins
Wayne R. Stinson, Coordinator Ann C. Adams
Cynthia Wilson
CC: Board of Elections
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors

New York Democracy War

2009-04-04T12:17:00.000-07:00

A Short History of the New York Democracy Wars

I'm not an investigative journalist or a war correspondent. I'm just an ordinary citizen and voting integrity advocate watching the battle from my vantage point in the hills of Schoharie County.

I am an observer of political currents, political critters and would be captains of commerce. The captains and their lobbyists can be spotted circling the capital buildings when the scent of money is on the air. It is in times like this that politicians can be easily observed engaged in intercourse with said captains and their lobbyists. These exchanges are important to us because the people's treasure is the currency of this drama and our democracy is very much at risk.

The drama of which I speak began earlier but we'll click on the play button at about ten years ago. The militant anti-democracy idealogues had been in exile for several years but they were not still. They had published their plan, an explicit statement of what America's world position should be in the 21st century. It was a blueprint for the America of their dreams and it's execution would depend upon the Republican partisans winning the 2000 election. The Republican party, determined to take the Presidency by any means, and aided by corrupt Florida election functionaries, a seriously unethical and probably criminal voting machine company and a surprising Supreme Court ruling, installed an ignorant puppet as President of the United States in January, 2001.

Spurred into action, ostensibly by the horrors of deformed chads which defied all attempts to discern the will of voters, and recognizing that they needed a more reliable system to control democracy and maintain a permanent Republican government, Congressman Bob Ney, with the guidance of Diebold voting machine company, introduced the Orwellian Help America Vote Act. Ney's no longer a congressman, he's in jail now for unrelated crimes, but the HAVA regulations live on.

Early on in the play a second plot line was introduced, some say with the direct involvement, or at least the passive acquiescence, of the newly installed regime, when angry Arabs from the other side of the world took vengeance on America for it's imperialistic behavior over there. They flew airliners into the capitalists' prayer point knocking down two very tall buildings and killing many, many Americans. This incident instantly endowed the puppet with extraordinary powers he then used to transform our country into a habitat more hospitable for the oligarchs, and repressive of the peons, a habitat more a monarchy or dictatorship than a democracy.

Scoring several wins in the 2002 midterm elections the new authoritarian, monarchical, Commander-in-Chief puppet regime was on a roll. Popular Democratic incumbents were ousted in states where Diebold voting equipment was used but the would be rulers of the world knew they had more work to do to ensure the puppet's second, third and fourth term. A partisan-politicized Justice Dept was put into play aggressively prosecuting trumped up voter fraud cases and threatening to force HAVA compliance in any state which seemed reluctant to deploy electronic voting.

Ohio was the chosen battlefield for 2004. Ohio was home for Ney, the Diebold company (with many election districts served by Diebold machines) and a Secretary of State with a penchant for unethical behavior in the service of the party. The permanent Republican control enterprise had grown in sophistication. There were now talented IT people on board to create a complex "man in the middle" routine for shaping the election results. They pulled it off. The ignorant one was re-installed for a second term.

So it was in 2008 that many of us observers of currents, captains and criminals were at the ready and working hard to prevent New York State from becoming the next battleground lost in electronic service to the permanent power empire builders.

Collectively we had made a hell of a stink in opposition to direct recording electronic voting machines and in favor of a paper ballot system. Then, when a little luck came our way in the form of a state BOE crippled by partisan squabbling and a federal judge short on patience, a paper ballot scanner system was the only system left standing at the very moment of decision. That would be the Sequoia ImageCast combination Ballot Marking Device and ballot scanner. We bought it, and it must be a really good system because we paid way, way too much for it.

An important subplot throughout this drama, little recognized or attended to by politicians, lobbyists or the captains of commerce, was the preservation of democracy. It was a strange battle with politicians, lobbyists, bureaucrats both federal and state, and judges all focused lemming-like on the goal of imposing electronic voting upon the citizens of America. It was as if all the aforementioned rodents had experienced an identical Epiphany: To vote requires a machine, and modernity demands that machine be solid-state electronic, and the huge amounts of federal money appropriated for the transition dictated that these machines were to be expensive. And so it came to pass.

Some will describe it as a compromise. The democracy defenders got their paper ballots. The lemmings got their solid-state electronic and expensive ballot marking device/scanner machines. All the Federal money has been spoken for. Everybody should be happy. What more could they want?

The partisan patronage appointees charged with managing our elections really didn't want to have to deal with paper ballots. They had hoped to avoid any of the extra chores paper ballots might require. Obviously, most of the voting machine manufacturers did not get a contract to supply machines. Only two companies will be supplying all of New York State. Of all the actors the ones most ill at ease are the good government groups, election integrity watchdogs and individual democracy defenders. They remain concerned that, absent adequate audits, transparency and citizen participation, the electronic ballot scanners might be programmed to control election outcomes.

Of these patriots many are dissatisfied with the ballots being counted by an electronic machine and are pressing for more extensive audits than provided for in NY law. Some are in court arguing to retain the lever machines rather than trusting a scanner count of ballots. And there are some who so distrust the electronic machines, the companies that make them, the election management bureaucracy and the various other governmental agencies that might otherwise be expected to stand guard over democracy, that they want every paper ballot counted by hand under the caring eyes of the citizens, with the ballot counting chores being handled by randomly chosen citizen volunteers. And they demand, if there is to be a scanner count, it must be relegated to serving as a confirmation of the hand count.

This last group of pro-democracy patriots claim support for their position in none other than New York's HAVA compliance legislation, The Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005. They note that the amended Election Law (Sec.9-211, Sub 3,4 & 5) recognizes the primacy of paper ballots as the official record of an election and reason that official records of an election can not be disregarded or subordinated to an electronic count and therefore the paper ballots must be 100% counted by hand.

Late last year certification testing of the Sequoia ballot marking device/ballot scanner machines, most of which have already been delivered to local Boards of Election, was interrupted when the testing contractor itself was de-certified due to poor performance, inadequate record keeping and inappropriate assurances to machine manufacturers. Testing had barely just resumed when the national economy began to crumble threatening state and local governments with huge budget shortfalls. Sequoia, apparently numb to the world around them, decided the time was right to announce price increases, including a demand for outrageously high license fees for software required to run the machines.

So that's where we are. The New York State election administrators will continue to slog through their partisan differences while conducting machine testing, developing an audit regimen and resolving the software licensing fees issue. Our responsibility, every citizens' responsibility, is to continue defending democracy.

We have to continue hacking away at the election administration lemmings, zombie voting machine reps and other corporate shills who would have us lay down and give them control of elections and our democracy. We will continue to confront, write, call and message anyone and everyone who might be instrumental in developing the election administration procedures and practices which will protect the integrity of our elections.

Citizen Advisory Board Proposed to BOE

2009-02-27T14:08:00.000-08:00

The Voting Integrity Project
A public interest initiative of The Peacemakers of Schoharie County
Po Box 214, Cobleskill, NY 12043

2 January 2009

Schoharie County Board of Elections
PO Box 99
Schoharie, NY 12157

Commissioners Wilson, Hay,
Snowdon and Davies-Griffin

Last month representatives of the Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project met with the Board of Supervisors Rules & Legislation Committee to introduce a proposal for increased citizen participation in election administration and cooperation with the Board of Supervisors.

Specifically we suggested creation of a Citizens Advisory Board for Election Administration (CABEA) which would cooperate with the Rules & Legislation Committee and the Board of Elections.

The Rules & Legislation Committee agreed that the next step must include discussions with Board of Elections representatives and suggested this take place at a subsequent committee meeting. Chairman Brandow has indicated he will schedule that meeting after consultation with your office.

For your interest we have enclosed copies of our communications with the Rules & Legislation Committee which introduce the CABEA concept. Please note the concept and the suggested areas of cooperation are most certainly a work in progress which will require your input to produce a viable end product. I encourage you to contribute your expertise to the development of this idea.

As always we are available at your convenience to discuss this proposal. Please feel free to contact us at 518-287-1463 or airhead@midtel.net .

For the Voting Integrity Project

Wayne Stinson, Coordinator

CC: Rules & Legislation Committee

Enclosures: R&L Comm. Ltr., To Begin The Conversation, Democracy in Election Administration.

The Frugal Voting Booth

2009-02-27T10:46:00.000-08:00

An Inexpensive Voting Booth Solution

Local Boards of Elections have begun to consider what additional supplies and equipment they will need to implement the paper ballot voting system. The State BOE has started the process of developing an Invitation for Bids (IFB) for voting privacy booths.

The voting equipment manufacturers have been marketing their voting booth offerings for many months already but none of the proposed systems are inexpensive. Prices range from $150 to $300 per booth. Most are unnecessarily complex or bulky, requiring way too much storage space, and very few are designed with the voter’s comfort as a priority.

The above picture shows a very inexpensive solution which offers the needed privacy while also providing greater voter comfort. The photo is of a corrugated plastic tabletop divider fabricated from a 4' X 8' sheet of 1/4" signboard which produces three voting positions on a 7' table for less than $50. The IFB could specify such a design also.

Consider that practically every polling place has ready availability of folding tables and chairs. All that is needed to turn these ubiquitous items into comfortable voting booths is the addition of privacy screens.

The folding table solution suggested above is so inexpensive that each of our polling places could easily be provided with sixteen or more voting stations for the price of one commercial voting booth. What economy! What luxury!

If commercially available booths are the only option considered a minimum number of booths will be ordered to keep costs down. This will likely result in voters having to wait in line to vote. And, if the less expensive booths, which require the voter to remain standing while completing their ballot, are chosen the elderly and infirm will suffer discomfort and possibly be discouraged from voting at all.

The picture at right shows another frugal solution: a corrugated cardboard privacy carrel available from office supply services. If a more durable product is desired the IFB could specify corrugated plastic construction.

Given the present economic pressures we believe such a frugal solution is almost unavoidable. We hope the State BOE, their testing oversight contractor NYSTEC and the State OGS will give this suggestion serious consideration.

For the Voting Integrity Project,

Wayne R. Stinson, Coordinator

HCPB and Citizen Advisory Boards proposed to SOS Cortes-Vazquez

2008-11-16T10:57:00.000-08:00

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

Citizen Advisory Board Proposed for Schoharie County

2008-11-16T10:41:00.000-08:00

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.

Voting Machine Position Statement Clarification & Extension

2008-11-16T10:29:00.000-08:00

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.

Police Power in a Democracy

2008-08-30T12:21:00.000-07:00

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

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

Democracy In New York Election Administration

2008-08-29T11:37:00.000-07:00

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.

Voting Integrity Project Calls For Investigations

2008-05-04T05:54:00.000-07:00

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

A Tawdry Morass We Can Avoid

2008-04-14T14:02:00.000-07:00

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.

The Indispensable Element: Paper Ballots

2008-02-19T11:00:00.000-08:00

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.

No Fat Lady Song Yet

2008-02-03T11:37:00.000-08:00

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.

Partisanship, Arrogance, Malfeasance & We Won!

2008-01-24T11:10:00.000-08:00

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:

"...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."

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."

Board Reaffirms Support for PBOS

2008-01-24T10:20:00.000-08:00

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.

Voting Equipment Selection

2008-01-13T09:35:00.000-08:00

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.

Amicus Curiae Brief PR

2007-12-23T09:03:00.000-08:00

For immediate release 15 December 2007 Contact: W. Stinson 518.287.1463

Peacemakers in Friend of Court appeal on Voting Machines

The Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project has joined with thirty other election integrity groups, legislators, authors and scholars in an amicus curiae submission to the US District Court for the Northern District of New York.

The amicus brief, filed this past week, seeks to inform the court with respect to U.S.A. v New York State Board of Elections.

In a recent filing the U.S. Justice Department asked the court to assume control of the selection of voting machines for New York State because the Board of Elections has failed to meet deadlines set by the court.

The groups and individuals joined in this amicus brief hope to avoid this outcome because it would likely result in untested electronic voting machines being imposed upon the voters of New York State. A crescendo of criticism has been directed at electronic voting machines (DREs) due to the many reports of machine failure and apparent manipulation of vote tabulations in recent elections.

Wayne Stinson, Coordinator of the Voting Integrity Project, is critical of the Justice Department's position.

"The Justice Department argues that New York State's certification testing program be ignored and some machine, any machine, be selected, purchased and deployed for the 2008 election cycle. The absurdity of this position becomes obvious when many other states are presently scrapping their DREs in favor of a paper ballot system. I'm convinced the Justice Department does not have the best interests of New York voters at heart in this case" Stinson said.

Two other amicus briefs are expected to be submitted in this case. The association of County Election Commissioners is asking to be heard and several additional voting integrity groups have joined in an additional appeal.

New Yorkers for Verified Voting, The Leage of Woman Voters, The New York Public Interest Research Group and Citizen Action of New York are also suggesting the adoption of paper ballot voting rather than DRE electronic voting machines.

U.S. District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe could rule in this case as early as this week.

Citizens interested in learning more about the Peacemakers, the Voting Integrity Project or voting technology should contact Wayne Stinson at 518.287.1463 or airhead@midtel.net .

A Democracy Appeal

2007-12-06T11:46:00.000-08:00

The following remarks were originally prepared for the Schoharie County Board of Supervisors with the hope that the lawmakers would rise to the occasion and do the right thing for the electorate and our democracy. Because of pending changes to the Makeup of the board, and the imminent intervemtion of the Federal Court, the remarks have not been directed to the board but are posted here for your consideration.

The greatest threat to peace and security for any person is their own government, not some foreign power or alien national. Government has great power over a citizen’s everyday life, and therefore, the potential to cause great harm. America’s founders understood this and structured the constitution to protect us, today however, some of those constitutional protections are in doubt.

Naomi Wolf, writing in "The End Of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot," informs us that democracy can be lost, and indeed, has been lost to other peoples in the past. We would be wise to learn the lessons of history that are there for us.

It should be obvious to anyone watching national political developments that our democracy is threatened. The important underpinnings of democracy, well articulated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, have been systematically attacked by the Executive, Congress and sometimes even by the courts over the past several years. Recognizing the damage that has been done, let’s agree that we all must assume responsibility for protecting democracy!

Politicians frequently remind us of the many Americans who have fought and died for democracy, and then admonish us to "support the troops." I suggest the same rationale for supporting democracy and the integrity of our elections. The least we can do is not let democracy and election integrity go without a fight.

Where am I going with this? Well, you should expect that I’m going to talk to you about voting machines again. I will not disappoint you, but the main point I want to make is our shared responsibility for preserving democracy by protecting the integrity of our ballot.

The purpose of elections is freely choosing our public servants by majority-rule. The essence of America is self-government, recognizing that all legitimate government power comes only from elections in government "of the people, by the people and for the people." To this end election officials must provide a voting system compatible with democracy, that is a system which is trustworthy, or they're not public servants. Democracy can not long survive in secrecy behind closed doors, or in the secret black box of an electronic voting computer. Democracy requires transparency in elections.

An August 2006 Zogby poll found 92% of Americans preferred observable vote counting over secret proprietary systems. The electorate intuitively knows that they shouldn’t trust something they can’t see. If we were to survey the citizens of Schoharie County about computerized voting machines, something our Election Commissioners should have done years ago, I expect a similar proportion of our citizens would reject the invisible ballots of electronic voting machines.

Is it possible for public servants to pursue policies out of touch with over ninety percent of the electorate? Yes, they can and will if you let them. Remember those 6th grade lessons about checks and balances? It's time for election officials to be checked on the voting machine issue.

Thirty some years ago the New York State Election Law was amended to create the election administration we have today. The legislature, apparently embracing a security philosophy of mutually assured distrust, gave the two major political parties control over the process. This was tantamount to putting two foxes in the henhouse. These two partisan groups are not committed to protecting democracy. Their job is winning elections - not protecting the integrity a citizen’s ballot . This is evinced by a long history of fraud and anti-democratic actions by election officials.

I’m sure that somewhere out there there’s an honest, idealistic election official who might justifiably take offense at this generalization. We can acknowledge that there are exceptions, but this does not alter the facts which must guide public policy. In this debate over voting systems the only party without a conflict of interest is the electorate, the people you represent.

Because national election results since 2000 have been so controversial there have been many election fraud investigations, most conducted by voting integrity advocates rather than government agencies. This fact is itself additional evidence of failed election administration. Such private party investigations are usually reported in documentary films, reports, or books.

One such report is "Was the 20045 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count" by Steven F. Freeman Ph.D. & Joel Bleifuss. Doctor Freeman is a Visiting Scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, Graduate Program of Organizational Dynamics. Mr. Bleifuss is an investigative reporter and Editor of In These Times.

Historically, election exit polls have been very accurate. Germany uses exit polling to verify the integrity of their elections. Their polls average less than ½ of 1% divergence from official counts. A 2005 initial exit poll in England was right on the mark. And, in 2004, a discrepancy in the exit polls resulted in the presidential election being voided in the Ukraine.

Edison/Mitofsky pollsters have been conducting exit polls for the national elections since 1993. Over the past few years those exit polls have been seriously off the mark, sometimes almost a double digit divergence from the official tallies.

The 2004 presidential race produced some highly improbable exit polls. If the polls were inaccurate due to chance circumstances those discrepancies should have been distributed more or less evenly between Kerry and Bush.

However, in that nationwide survey, the discrepancies between the exit polls and official results favored Bush in 44 states but in only 6 states for Kerry. The odds against this happening by chance are tens-of-millions-to-one according to Freeman & Bleifuss.

The investigators also report that in ten of the eleven so-called battleground states the official count differed from the exit polls. In all ten states the difference favored George Bush, a one-in-a-thousand possibility.

Another "improbable" statistic: In every presidential election between 1988 and 2004 the official count was divergent from the exit polls. In each case it was a Republican candidate that benefited from the discrepancy. In each case that Republican was named George Bush. And, in each case that candidate was running with the benefit of an incumbency except for the 2000 contest.

In that race George W. Bush was not an incumbent, but he did have his brother Jeb the Governor of Florida, Secretary of State Kathleen Harris, and the US Supreme Court pulling for him.

The statisticians found other curious correlations; the racial makeup of the state, Republican control of governorship, whether a swing state, and … where paper ballots were not used, all correlated positively with poll discrepancies.

When they were done analyzing the available election polling data Freeman and Bleifuss had uncovered considerable evidence tending to answer their title question in the affirmative. They confidently reported:

"National exit polls indicate that Bush suffered a defeat in the popular vote by approximately 7 million votes, a margin of about 5 percentage points. On the other hand, the official story of Bush’s 3 million vote victory is simply not substantiated by the data.
The only conclusion consistent with the data is that the 2004 U.S. presidential election was stolen."

And there’s more: Remember the hanging chads? - Just a few weeks ago several former employees of Sequoia Pacific came forward to confirm that the voting machine company had sabotaged the 2000 vote in Florida.

In another investigation, we learned that intentional degradation of quality control standards by another voting machine manufacturer resulted in machine failures that altered the outcome of a 2006 congressional race in Florida.

This past month, We learned that the government of The Netherlands has decided to decertify and withdraw from service the Nedap/Liberty voting machine because of security concerns. Said security concerns are likely due to exposure of the machine‘s security weaknesses by voting integrity advocates, and possibly the unethical behavior of the company’s software executive.

Last year Ireland decided to put their Nedap machines into storage because the responsible authorities were unconvinced as to the machine’s security.

Mounting numbers of election administrators across the country are abandoning the electronic voting machines they purchased with HAVA funds and are now deploying paper ballot systems instead.

So, here we are:

There is no responsible argument supporting the use of electronic voting machines.

Citizen voters know it.

Election integrity activists know it.

Computer Security experts know it.

Newspaper editors know it - 20 NY papers support Paper Ballot Voting

Governors and Secretaries of State of the states which have either switched to paper ballot voting or seriously restricted DRE use know it, among them; California, Connecticut, New Mexico and Florida.

Some NY Election officials have admitted it.

And…..Certainly, by now I believe you know it, and you know what you should do.

The Election Commissioners are the appointed co-department heads of the Elections Department. Oversight of this department and its administrators is the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors.

For the preservation of election integrity, you can not allow the Election Commissioners to impose electronic voting machines on the citizens of Schoharie County.

I repeat: The Election Commissioners must be checked on the voting machine issue. As the body with the power and responsibility to do so the citizens expect you to act.

As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, this problem is bigger than Schoharie County, however, each of us needs to do our part because democracy starts right here.

For the sake of our nation, and for our children, find your place in the struggle to defend democracy. Democracy is something you do!

Defending Democracy

2007-11-10T16:50:00.000-08:00

The passage of another election day, with a half empty ballot to contemplate, gives me cause to wonder....and worry.

Sarah, a forty something housecleaner, teenage waitress Wendy, Billy the auto mechanic, Elliot, a retired civil servant and his wife Susan, a used to be hairdresser: these ordinary folks, and many others like them who’ve crossed my path recently, have shaken my confidence in the viability of the grand American experiment.

I hold these folks to be typical American citizens, salt of the earth, honest hard working people who, if it weren’t for one characteristic they have in common, would bring a smile to my face and a warm sense of community to my heart. That one terribly disheartening commonality: They don’t vote!

The catalog of excuses, explanations and justifications for this sad fact includes; a weak smile with a shrug, “I don’t vote,” “I’m not a voter,” “I’m not registered” and “I don’t know anything about politics.” To this I usually respond with a non-judgmental suggestion that there are important issues at stake, issues that their self-interest argues for participation. I have no data indicating such encouragement has actually caused someone to register or vote. Maybe I’m going about this all wrong.

In his inaugural address John F. Kennedy said “…ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Perhaps it would be more effective if I appealed to a citizen’s responsibility to the nation as the rationale for participating in elections.

It should be increasingly obvious to anyone paying attention to national political developments that our democracy is hurting. The important underpinnings of democracy, well articulated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, have been systematically attacked by the Executive, Congress and sometimes even by the courts over the past several years. Recognizing that damage, let’s agree America needs an infusion of democracy!

Using JFK’s formulation we can state that as citizens of America we are responsible for defending and repairing the Constitution. We, each one of us, are responsible for keeping our democracy healthy. So, what will you do for democracy?

I’ve devoted time and energy to protecting the integrity of our elections. My niche in this larger effort is stopping electronic voting machines and the privatization of election administration. There are many other opportunities for contribution. See: www.nyvv.org , www.wheresthepaper.org , www.citizenactionny.org/ , or www.blackboxvoting.org .

For the sake of our nation, and for our children, vote, and then find your place in the struggle to defend democracy. Democracy is something you do!

Untested Voting Machines

2007-11-08T13:33:00.000-08:00

The New York State Board of Elections met yesterday 11.7.07. The only positive I can report is that the main stream media was represented, AND, ABC's Nightly News coverage included good interviews with three election integrity advocates......YES! Finally!

The news:

With the US Justice Department and the Federal District Court looking over their shoulder, The State Board of Elections is under a great deal of pressure to get something done…..quickly.

Defenders of democracy be afraid, be very afraid.

A controversial proposal by the State Board of Elections to allow Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machines to be used in each polling place for disabled voter accessibility and to serve as a Ballot-Marking Device (BMD), rather than using actual ballot-marking systems designed for the purpose, has gone forward.
The proposal will allow DRE vendors to submit their equipment with the machine’s vote recording and tabulating capability disabled, and to use the DRE’s VVPAT as an official ballot.

Opponents of the plan point to significant problems with this proposal. The DREs do not permit a voter with visual disability to receive an alternative verification (audio) from the paper record itself, while the ballot-marking systems do. This a critical failing since the VVPAT is a small document and difficult to see even for people with normal vision.

Opponents also note a significant legal question remains as to whether the VVPAT output satisfies NYS laws defining a ballot. State BOE officials are aware of this issue but chose to not require the vendors to equip their machines with more sophisticated printers which could print a proper ballot.

The BOE has already issued a request for proposals for ballot marking devices using the modified rules and apparently there are several vendors that have expressed an interest in submitting their DREs for authorization as a BMD. The vendor’s interest is not surprising since this new proposal provides an opportunity to place their DRE machines in the field absent the otherwise required certification, and a year earlier than if they had to wait for testing to be complete.

Vendors also surely recognize the probability, that once deployed, the BOE would not allow the certification process to fail a machine already paid for and deployed by the counties.

The Voting Integrity Project, NYVV, LWV-NY and several accessibility advocacy groups continue to oppose this plan. If and when any DRE is actually “authorized” as a ballot marking device, opposing organizations will likely mount a legal challenge.

see related earlier posts: Oct.'07 "NYS BOE End Run Scam" and "NYS BOE Chastised by Peacemakers VIP"

Friendly Paper Ballot Voting

2007-10-27T07:01:00.001-07:00

Originally published in The Bridge last year, this piece remains useful in helping citizens understand how a paper ballot system will impact their voting experience. PBW

The Essential Voting Experience

Just the other day a friend asked me to describe the Paper Ballot/Optical Scan voting system that she has heard so much about. Having voted on the lever machines all her adult life, she was curious what it will be like to vote using the paper ballot system. I expect my friend is not the only citizen to wonder about such things.

Certainly the shift to a different voting system will bring changes but some aspects of the experience will remain very familiar. The voter will, of course, still have to be registered to vote and she will still have to sign in at the Election Inspector’s table upon entering the polling place. Eventually it may come to pass that the Inspectors will have access to the statewide electronic registration records and that might result in a different sign in procedure. In the near term, however, the voter will continue to sign in as we have done in the past. It is from this point on that the voter will experience some changes.

Instead of cueing up and waiting her turn at a voting machine, the voter will be given a paper ballot and be directed to take a seat at any one of several privacy booths in the polling area. One polling place this writer recently visited in Maine had over a dozen booths. The quantity of privacy booths needed will be dictated by the number of voters the polling place is intended to serve. Each privacy booth will have all necessary ballot instructions posted and will be equipped with the proper marking pen. Paper ballots vary but most simply require the voter to fill in a circle or complete an arrow to indicate their choices. There will likely be no time limit for the voter. She will be able to leisurely consider each ballot section, referring to the instructions as often as necessary, and taking as much time as she needs to make her choices.

When a voter has finished marking her ballot she simply deposits it in the ballot box before leaving the polling place. If a ballot scanner is being used to tally the votes, the voter would instead insert her ballot into the scanner. There is not likely to be any waiting at the ballot scanner as it takes less than three seconds for the machine to scan a ballot.

When a ballot scanner is used New York State law requires that the machine notify the voter of an undervote; that is the absence of a selection in one or more ballot positions. If the undervote was intentional the voter simply tells the scanner to accept the ballot as is. If unintentional the voter can return to a privacy booth to complete the ballot. The Election Law also requires a scanner to reject a ballot with an overvote (too many ballot selections in a position). A ballot rejected due to an overvote will be ejected by the machine. Corrections or erasures are not allowed, so a poll worker will assist the voter in obtaining a replacement ballot and the voter returns to a privacy booth to mark the new ballot. Scanned ballots are retained in a secure storage box under the machine, and because they are the official record of the election, are retained for a length of time to maintain their availability in the event of a recount.

One last observation concerning the voter’s experience in the polling place and the election process in general; When voting with a paper ballot a citizen enjoys a very personal and gratifying experience. She is issued her own personal ballot, a tangible document, which she marks with her own hand, and then deposits in the ballot box with her own hand. She leaves the polling place with no doubt as to how she voted. She read it, she marked it, she reviewed it, and she put it the locked ballot box herself. The only way she could claim any greater confidence as to the integrity of her vote would be to volunteer to be an election inspector and help count the ballots herself - which of course she can and should do along with many of her neighbors.

Will You Get To Vote?

2007-10-19T05:03:00.000-07:00

Will You Get To Vote?
22 June 2007 by Wayne Stinson

For the past three years the Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project has been focused on the security of any new voting system election officials might choose. But there is a myriad of pitfalls which could affect your franchise.

We have learned, in part due to the efforts of Rep. John Conyers, that many Ohio citizens were deterred from voting during the 2004 presidential election. This was accomplished by simply failing to deploy a sufficient number of voting machines. This paucity of equipment resulted in very long wait times, in some cases as long as four hours, for college students and citizens residing in minority communities. It is reasonable to assume that some people could not, or chose not to, wait for such a long time and thus were cheated of their basic democratic right.

The New York State Board of Elections, as part of their administrative duties, must specify the service limit of a voting system. They have posted the proposed Part 6210 Routine Maintenance and Testing of Voting Systems and Operational Procedures for public comment. These regulations govern local BOE operations including the service limits of voting machines (the number of voters each system can be expected to serve).

The Voting Integrity Project has submitted commentary on these proposed regulations too lengthy to reproduce in their entirety here. One item relevant to this discussion is section 6210.19, subsection 1 which states in part: "...one DRE voting machine for every 550 active registered voters." (DRE = direct recording electronic, such as the LibertyVote machine which is favored by the Schoharie County Election Commissioners).

The state BOE is proposing the 550/DRE number in spite of the timing study they commissioned last year (referred to as the AIR study for the company that did the work) which arrived at a number of 351.5 voters per 15 hr. polling period (15 X 60 / 2.56 min. mean time to vote on a Liberty). 6210.19 Commentary offered to the NYS BOE by the Voting Integrity Project follows:

"Taking into account the AIR timing study results, this 550 service limit number seems to indicate that the NY BOE is assuming a voter turnout of something like 60% and that those voters will present in a very orderly uniform manner [like one every 2.56 min.?] so as to avoid long waiting times. It’s not going to work. The service limit needs to be much lower. Other jurisdictions have set limits much lower, some even less than 200."

Several jurisdictions using DRE voting systems were surveyed by New Yorkers for Verified Voting. Their voting machine service limits ranged from a low of 74 to a high of 328.
Schoharie County citizens will be interested to know that, even using the inflated service limit number in the proposed 6210 regulations, we will be required to buy at least 45 DRE machines. Of the 27 county election districts only 10 have enrollments less than or close to 550. The remainder will require two machines each. This is significantly more machines than anticipated by our election commissioners. In a recent quote attributed to Democratic Commissioner Cliff Hay he indicated that 35 machines would be needed. The 550/DRE rule demands 45 machines, 28 with accessibility devices and 17 without, and will cost $425,000.00, 33% more than the expected Help America Vote Act funds .

If a more realistic service limit is used, such as 250, the cost of the new voting machines will increase to over $650,000.00. This number does not take into account storage, transport, spare parts and ancillary equipment needed to maintain the machines and conduct elections. Please also remember the annual software license fees equal to 12% of the total contract.

The Voting Integrity Project has been advocating for paper ballot voting because of its economy and superior security. The following is excerpted from the Peacemakers Voting Machine Position Statement of 17 June 2006:

"...the Paper Ballot voting system. 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.

Therefore, Peacemakers of Schoharie County urges all New York citizens to refuse to accept electronic voting machines, to refuse to vote using an electronic voting machine, and to henceforth demand paper ballots for every election. There seems no better way for the electorate to express their will on this matter."

The proposed 6210 regulations also specify service limits for paper ballot voting systems. There is a service limit of 4000 voters per optical scanner and one voting privacy booth for every 300 voters. The Voting Integrity Project commented:

"We should not be miserly in deploying inexpensive voting booths. Voters should be encouraged to take as much time as needed to complete their ballot and they should be able to do so without anxiety about causing others to wait. The service limit for voting booths should be set no higher than 150 and, for the comfort of the elderly or infirm, the booths should allow voters to be seated while completing their ballot."

If the Schoharie County election officials and elected representatives want to ensure that no citizen is subjected to long lines and long waiting at the polls they should tell the NYS BOE to adopt a much lower service limit for the DRE machines.

If they want to provide a much more secure and economical system that will also provide a much more reassuring voting experience they should join the chorus of voting integrity advocates who are pressing for the paper ballot voting system.

Wayne Stinson is the coordinator of the Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project. He can be reached at 518-287-1463 or airhead@midtel.net .

What Will You Do For Democracy?

2007-10-18T20:09:00.000-07:00

What Will You Do For Democracy?
18 Oct. 2007

Sarah, a forty something housecleaner, teenage waitress Wendy, Billy the auto mechanic, Elliot, a retired civil servant and his wife Susan, a used to be hairdresser: these ordinary folks, and many others like them who’ve crossed my path recently, have shaken my confidence in the viability of the grand American experiment.

I hold these folks to be typical American citizens, salt of the earth, honest hard working people who, if it weren’t for one characteristic they have in common, would bring a smile to my face and a warm sense of community to my heart. That one terribly disheartening commonality: They don’t vote!

The catalog of excuses, explanations and justifications for this sad fact includes; a weak smile with a shrug, “I don’t vote,” “I’m not a voter,” “I’m not registered” and “I don’t know anything about politics.” To this I usually respond with a non-judgmental suggestion that there are important issues at stake, issues that their self-interest argues for participation. I have no data indicating such encouragement has actually caused someone to register or vote. Maybe I’m going about this all wrong.

In his inaugural address John F. Kennedy said “…ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Perhaps it would be more effective if I appealed to a citizen’s responsibility to the nation as the rationale for participating in elections.

It should be increasingly obvious to anyone paying attention to national political developments that our democracy is hurting. The important underpinnings of democracy, well articulated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, have been systematically attacked by the Executive, Congress and sometimes even by the courts over the past several years. Recognizing that damage, let’s agree America needs an infusion of democracy!

Using JFK’s formulation we can state that as citizens of America we are responsible for defending and repairing the Constitution. We, each one of us, are responsible for keeping our democracy healthy. So, what will you do for democracy?

I’ve devoted time and energy to protecting the integrity of our elections. My niche in this larger effort is stopping electronic voting machines and the privatization of election administration. There are many other opportunities for contribution.

For the sake of our nation, and for our children, vote, and then find your place in the struggle to defend democracy. Democracy is something you do!

PBW

US Attorney warned about voting machine companies

2007-10-15T09:26:00.000-07:00

The Voting Integrity Project
A public interest initiative of The Peacemakers of Schoharie County
Po Box 214, Cobleskill, NY 12043

25 September 2007

Glenn T. Suddaby, United States AttorneyPost Office Box 7198100 South Clinton StreetSyracuse, NY 13261-7198

For the past several years The Voting Integrity Project has toiled to convince election officials and elected leaders that electronic voting machines and the companies that make them are not trustworthy.

The Peacemakers Voting Integrity Project and many similar citizen groups across the country have been frustrated by dismissive election administrators, disinterested political leaders, and a seemingly oblivious news media. Now, thankfully, it seems we are witnessing a resurgence of responsible journalism.

On August 14th the satellite channel HD Net aired an important production of Dan Rather Reports titled: The Trouble With Touch Screens? This hour long program included two investigative reports concerning apparent voting machine failures. Mr. Rather was successful in finding witnesses willing to speak out about the incompetence and criminality of two voting machine manufacturers, Election Software and Services (ES&S) and Sequoia Pacific.

If the New York State Board of Elections continues true to form there will be no reaction to the information provided by Dan Rather and HD NET. We have provided this same material to them because these two voting machine manufacturers are seeking contracts with New York State.

We have enclosed a copy of "The Trouble With Touchscreens" for your information. Also enclosed are copies of two letters to the New York State Board of Elections, one concerning the Dan Rather Report and an April 2007 communication concerning the probable criminal activity of the Nedap voting machine company.

The Voting Integrity Project is providing this information so the US Attorney’s office will be fully aware of the problems with electronic voting machines and the privatization of our elections. We believe this is critically important in light of the Justice Department’s legal challenge to New York State’s HAVA compliance, and, should electronic voting machines eventually be imposed on New York’s voters, the very real possibility that similar crimes as those visited upon Florida and The Netherlands will be again be committed in New York State.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

For The Voting Integrity Project,

Wayne Stinson, Coordinator

Cc: New York State Attorney General, Andrew Como, State Capital, Albany, NY 12224-0341

Election Fraud reported to NYS BOE

2007-10-15T09:22:00.001-07:00

The Voting Integrity Project
A public interest initiative of The Peacemakers of Schoharie County
Po Box 214, Cobleskill, NY 12043

25 September 2007

New York State Board of Elections
Neil W. Kelleher, Co-Chairman
Douglas A. Kellner, Co-Chairman
Evelyn J. Aquila, Commissioner
Helena Moses Donohue, Commissioner
40 Steuben St.
Albany, NY 12207-2108

Honorable Commissioners,

This communication concerns the responsibility and trustworthiness of two potential New York State Board of Elections vendors.

The Voting Integrity Project has become aware of two investigative reports prepared by Dan Rather and first aired on satellite channel HD Net August 14 2007.

In the first half of his program, "The Trouble With Touchscreens," Rather deals with manufacturing problems with ES&S ivotronics machines. The report reveals that ES&S was aware of the vote-flipping problems with the ivotronics but chose to deliver the defective machines anyway. The defective ivotronics machines are apparently the cause of the unusually large under vote in the 2006 13th CD contest in Florida. That contest result has been challenged by candidate Jennings and remains unresolved.

The second half of Dan Rather’s report concerns Sequoia Pacific’s sabotage of the 2000 presidential election. Sabotage might sound severe but after viewing the video you will appreciate the gravity of Sequoia’s actions. The report features interviews with seven former employees of Sequoia Pacific who provide considerable detail about sub-standard paper and non-standard printing specifications employed in the manufacture of the punch cards used in Florida.

The defective Sequoia punch card ballots resulted in the hanging chads infamous from the Gore-Bush contest recount.

The Voting Integrity Project believes that ES&S and Sequoia are revealed to be untrustworthy by the evidence provided in these reports and must not be considered viable New York State Board of Elections voting system vendors. A review of the evidence presented in these investigative reports will surely result in a negative Vendor Responsibility Investigation finding.

For The Voting Integrity Project,

Wayne Stinson, Coordinator

Cc: Governor Eliot Spitzer,
New York State Comptroller

Enclosure: "The Trouble With Touchscreens" DVD.
Also available at http://www.hd.net/drr227.html .

NYS BOE End Run Scam

2007-10-15T09:07:00.000-07:00

Paper Ballot Warriors,

The New York State Board of Elections, in cooperation with the local BOEs, has devised a plan which will allow the local BOEs to order DRE electronic voting machines before the certification testing of these machines is complete.

As you read this the NYS BOE is developing new rules which will allow the voting machine manufacturers to submit their DRE machines for "authorization" as ballot marking devices intended to serve disabled voters. The plan calls for a limited qualification test to be accomplished quickly. Local BOEs then can order the "authorized" ballot marking devices ASAP.

All this is being done ostensibly to satisfy the Federal District Court demand for NY State to have accessible voting equipment in every polling place next year. The court wants to see a plan now which will be implemented by 9/08.

The local Election Commissioners do not want to spend any HAVA money on paper ballot system ballot marking devices (such as the AutoMark device which is used with a paper ballot system) and if they are allowed to purchase a DRE-Balloot Marking Device for each polling place rural counties will effectively be fully equipped with the DREs. This scheme has been devised to make the court, the vendors, and the election commissioners happy. The only persons not considered are citizens who care about the integrity of their vote.

The BOE might act on this as soon as tomorrow 16 October at their noon meeting, 40 Steuben St., Albany.

We can not let this happen. We must act.

The text of the plan is here:
http://www.elections.state.ny.us/portal/page?_pageid=35,1,35_26319:35_26335&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

and click on: Draft Requirements - Ballot Marking Devices

Please call or write the NYS BOE with comments.

Call: 518-474-1953, or email: info@elections.state.ny.us

Tell the BOE they can not violate their own rules requiring certification testing. Tell them you see the scam they're attempting.

Tell them you you do not trust electronic voting machines, or the people who sell them, or the New York State Board of Elections -- now.

Tell them you will not vote on an electronic voting machine.

Wayne

A Problem of Privatization

2007-10-14T15:02:00.000-07:00

A Problem of Privatization
Criminal behavior in The Netherlands we must heed
16 March 2007, Special to The Bridge by Wayne Stinson

Each morning I turn on the computer and set the email download in motion. Invariably, there’s a flood of messages from the various news groups I subscribe to. Usually I’ll return to the machine after fixing myself a mug of coffee to spend the first several minutes scanning the topics for issues that might be relevant to my election integrity work. This morning was different. There was a word in the subject line of one of the first messages which compelled my immediate attention: "Extortion."

The "extortion" message had originated with our friends in the Netherlands, The "We Do Not Trust Voting Computers" Foundation. I had been expecting a reply concerning the Dutch company Nedap, the manufacturer of an electronic voting machine that serves 90% of Dutch voters and is presently being marketed here in New York State as the LibertyVote. Their reply was a bombshell!

With the help of the Dutch Freedom of Information Act The "We Do Not Trust…" Foundation had uncovered what they describe as an attempted criminal extortion by the CEO of the company which provides the tabulation software used in the Nedap machines. They had acquired about thirty pages of communications between Jan Goenendaal, the owner of the software company which is the exclusive provider to Nedap, and the Dutch Electoral Council (Kiesraad).

Apparently the Dutch Electoral Council has become very dependent upon Goenendaal for the management of their elections. These FOIL sourced letters and email messages reveal that Mr. Goenendaal attempted to coerce the Dutch Government by threatening to withhold his company’s cooperation during the November, 2006 national elections and March, 2007 provincial elections. Specifically, In the midst of preparations for the November elections and in an attempt to prevent the government from appointing the founder of The "We Do Not Trust…" Foundation to an independent commission investigating the electoral process, Goenendaal warns the ministry that "…his company will cease all activity" if Rop Gonggrijp is appointed to the commission."

Mr. Goenendaal, apparently fearing for the fiscal health of his company following the public hacking of the Nedap machines in October, goes on to propose a business transaction of sorts: "…the ministry buys the shares of our company at a reasonable price, …and we will still cooperate during the next election" (the March Provincial elections).

Having not received an answer to his earlier demands Goenendaal again writes the Electoral Council in mid-December 2006 warning "We are heading towards a very dangerous situation" and, right in the heat of election preparations, he tells them "I have ordered my employees to halt all activity until we have received an answer that is acceptable to us."

This is a problem created by privatization. When a primary function of government, in this case management of elections, is allowed to be controlled to such a degree by a private entity you create a situation where a heavy-handed power play such as that exhibited by the Goenendaal software provider can occur.

As evidence of the detrimental effects of such a relationship I am sorry to report that no prosecution of Mr. Goenendaal has been initiated. On the contrary, following all the arm-twisting communications the Goenendaal firm was contracted to replace all the voting machine memory chips so that the Dutch government could issue a press release titled "No Doubts Regarding Reliability of Voting Machines."

As I had previously reported on these pages Nedap is aggressively marketing their machines here in New York State. The LibertyVote machine presently undergoing certification testing is the Nedap voting machine. If New York State were to certify this machine, those counties that buy them will be entering into a business relationship with a company that should not be trusted. Additionally, it would be extremely poor public policy to enter into such a relationship with a foreign corporation (Nedap), selling a sub-standard product (the LibertyVote), and, which is dependent upon a sub-contractor the likes of Mr. Goenendaal.

Schoharie County citizens should speak to their Supervisors and impress upon them that we should not do business with these people. Instead, we should use paper ballots and those ballots must be counted by hand for the official results.*

*The Peacemakers position statement calls for the ballots to be counted even if a ballot scanner is used to produce an early unofficial result. The complete report by The "We Do Not Trust Voting Computers" Foundation is at: http://www.wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/English/Groenendaal .

Wayne Stinson is the coordinator of the Peacemakers of Schoharie County, Voting Integrity Project. He can be reached at 518-287-1463 or airhead@midtel.net

Nedap (LibertyVote) machine hacked

2007-10-14T14:53:00.000-07:00

The following was originally published in The Bridge, POB 292, Cobleskill, NY

Voting Machine Security Questioned
Schoharie County citizens take heed.
16 March 2007 By Wayne Stinson

This past fall a group of computer savvy election integrity activists in The Netherlands undertook a security analysis of the voting machine widely used in their country. The group, "The We Do Not Trust Voting Computers Foundation," disassembled, decoded and examined three Nedap/Groenendaal ES3B electronic voting computers. These machines, which are also used in France and Germany, have been in use for several years and are said to record 90% of the votes cast in The Netherlands. This security analysis is very critical of the Dutch voting machine. The report of the Nedap security analysis was recently translated into English and became available to election integrity activists here in the United States.

So, of what concern is it to Schoharie County citizens that a bunch of Dutch nerds have torn apart some electronic voting machines? Ah, of much concern it seems. Let me explain.

The federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) requires states to modernize their election equipment and administration. HAVA also provided over three billion dollars for implementation of the required changes. New York State is compelled by the new law to replace all its old lever type voting machines thus creating a 200 million dollar opportunity which has attracted several voting machine manufacturers. A small actor in the New York State election services industry, Mr. Robert Witko of Fort Orange Press in Albany, formed a new business to market electronic voting machines to New York State.

That new business is Liberty Election Systems, a limited liability corporation with an address of 11 Sand Creek Rd., Albany, the same address as that listed for Fort Orange Press. Because Fort Orange Press and Mr. Witko have a long-standing business relationship with election officials, Liberty Election Systems has taken an early lead in the NY market. Despite the more than 1.5 million dollars spent by lobbyists for Liberty’s competitors over the past few years, many upstate election commissioners have expressed a preference for the LibertyVote. Schoharie County’s two election commissioners, Lew Wilson and Cliff Hay, have repeatedly stated that their choice of a new voting system is the LibertyVote machine and associated software products offered by Liberty Election Systems.

Liberty Election Systems does not build a voting machine or develop software to count votes. The products they are marketing are imported from The Netherlands. The manufacturer of the LibertyVote is Nedap and the author of the associated software is Groenendaal. The voting equipment Mr. Witko hopes to sell New York State is the same machinery the Dutch researchers disected and reviewed in their security analysis. A voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) printer has been added to comply with New York State law but the LibertyVote is essentially the Nedap/Groenendaal machine.

So, back to that security analysis we need to heed. Perhaps a quote from the report will best convey the information needed by Schoharie County’s citizens. Consider this from the introduction to the report:

"…the over-all security design of this computer relies almost solely on the near-universally deprecated concept of ‘security by obscurity.’ Since the problems we found stem from the very design philosophy, we see no quick fixes that could make this device sufficiently secure."

The report goes on to detail a variety of serious security failures of the machine and software from cheap, easily picked mechanical locks to sophomorically simple passwords allowing access to system management functions. A lack of appreciation for security by the manufacturer is further revealed by the use of inappropriate materials. The report states:
"…we believe it is significant to notice a pattern here: Tell Nedap they need to incorporate a lock and they pick the cheapest lock imaginable. Tell them to put a seal on it and they laser print their company logo on some paper labels."

Lest the reader assume these criticisms are just the ranting of some opinionated luddites I offer this observation made by Andrew Gumbel in his 2005 book Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America :
"In Europe the prime motivation for e-voting has not been the elimination of fraud, but rather the hope that the growing problem of voter apathy can be stemmed by making the process quicker and more painless. The Netherlands has been a pioneer in developing DREs, although it has focused almost exclusively on ensuring the technical solidity of the machines and given little or no thought to security measures or a paper backup."

Of course the main point of Gumbel’s book is the pervasiveness of electoral fraud here in the United States. We really do need to be concerned about fraud and a machine like the LibertyVote can only make matters worse on that score. The full Dutch security analysis report can be seen at : http://www.wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/images/9/91/Es3b-en.pdf .

Do Lew Wilson and Cliff Hay know about this report? Probably not, but we will make sure they are advised. Likewise, the New York State Board of Elections will be apprised. Certainly the agency responsible for certification testing of the LibertyVote will need to see this report and hopefully will take a second look at the weaknesses our Dutch friends have documented. We will make sure they see it.

And we hope our readers will be moved to contact their supervisor representative and demand that the county Board of Supervisors prevent our Election Commissioners from imposing the LibertyVote electronic voting machine on the voters. We also do not trust voting computers. We reject electronic voting machines. And we know paper ballots will help preserve our democracy.

Wayne Stinson is the Coordinator of the Peacemakers of Schoharie County Voting Integrity Project. He can be reached at 518-287-1463 or airhead@midtel.net .

NYS BOE Chastised by Peacemakers VIP

2007-10-14T14:41:00.000-07:00

The Voting Integrity Project
A public interest initiative of The Peacemakers of Schoharie County
Po Box 214, Cobleskill, NY 12043

5 October 2007

New York State Board of Elections
Neil W. Kelleher, Co-Chairman
Douglas A. Kellner, Co-Chairman
Evelyn J. Aquila, Commissioner
Helena Moses Donohue, Commissioner
40 Steuben St.
Albany, NY 12207-2108

Honorable Commissioners,

The Voting Integrity Project has reviewed the untitled document posted on the Board of Elections web page which is apparently a proposed regulation concerning Ballot Marking Devices. We have decided to not participate in the board’s quest for perfection in the wording of this tortured attempt to redefine a ballot marking device. Instead we will comment on the board’s performance in this whole affair.

A reader need go no further than the second paragraph to understand that these proposed "regulations" are actually an elaborate contrivance intended to facilitate the deployment of Direct Reading Electronic voting machines without first accomplishing the certification testing.

The following is excerpted from the New York State Board of Elections mission statement:
The State Board of Elections was established … [and] vested with the responsibility for administration and enforcement of all laws relating to elections in New York State.

It is obvious that the board is not honoring this element of their mission statement in proposing this regulation. Deploying these uncertified DRE voting machines will violate their previously adopted laws and regulations (ERMA and Title 9, subtitle V, Part 6209, Voting Machine Standards) which call for the machines to be fully tested and certified before they can be deployed. Additionally, the actual deployment will be in violation of the above cited rule resulting in subversion of the entire process.

Much has been said about the strong rules and high standards New York has set for the voting systems which will be certified. Indeed, election officials have frequently cited these high standards as cause for citizens to feel confident of the integrity of their vote. By so blatantly subverting their own testing process the board risks eroding citizen confidence, an effect also contrary to expressed goals such as this important element of the 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 Voting Integrity Project is not privy to the genesis of this scheme or who it is intended to benefit. We can only look at the proposed action and submit our observations.

Clearly the proposed rules will benefit the machine vendors who might otherwise suffer some anxiety that their equipment will not be certified. The premature, and illegal, deployment of their machines essentially assures the "successful" completion of DRE certification testing. It also makes it possible for the vendors to sell some of their equipment as much as a year earlier than might otherwise be possible.

The county Election Commissioners, who despite all the evidence to the contrary remain uncritically committed to buying DRE electronic voting machines, will be able to breathe a sigh of relief knowing that they have been successful ignoring public opinion and resisting paper ballot voting.

We also assume the United States Justice Department and the US District Court might be made more comfortable by having some sort of plan on file which they can point to and say "we did our job," however, we do hope they are able to look past the ostensible purposes of this plan and see the ill effects it will produce.

Our observations are that an important, indeed the primary, Board of Elections constituency has not been considered and will not be well served by this proposed rule. Voting machine vendors, local Election Commissioners, the state BOE itself perhaps and maybe the US Government entities they are engaged with might all be served in some fashion. The New York State electorate will not be! The proposed regulations fail to serve the "We the People" part of the formulation which is American democracy. For that failure we say shame on the Board of Elections.

The Voting Integrity Project appeals to the better judgment of the Election Commissioners and suggests that this proposed ballot marking device regulation not be adopted. It is the right thing to do for the voters of New York.

For the Voting Integrity Project,

Wayne Stinson
Coordinator

Ps: In addition to the electronic delivery a hard copy of this communication will be delivered via the USPS.

Cc: Governor Eliot Spitzer, The State Capital, Albany, NY 12224
Glenn T. Suddaby, United States Attorney, Post Office Box 7198, Syracuse, NY 13261-7198
New York State Attorney General, Andrew Como, State Capital, Albany, NY 12224-0341

An Issue For The Candidates

2007-10-14T07:50:00.000-07:00

Citizens,

For the past several years voting integrity activists have toiled to convince election officials, political leaders and the public that electronic voting machines and the companies that make them are not trustworthy. There is much evidence supporting this position.

Computerized voting machines (AKA electronic voting machines or DREs) are having a negative impact on our elections. Voters are being disenfranchised and are losing faith in the integrity of our elections. A 2006 report(1) detailed the failures of electronic voting machines during the mid-term elections:

* 18% of all problems reported concerned vote flipping on DREs.

* 80% of reports of usability problems were about DREs.

* DRE machine problems turned voters away in 50% of the states that use them.

* 66% of accessibility for disabled voters problems involved DRE voting machines.

* With DREs the official ballot is only an electronic record, voters cannot even see their ballots and are asked to trust that the machine is recording their vote as intended.

A recent Dan Rather Reports program(2) revealed that ES&S Ivotronic touch screens were known to flip votes but were sold to Florida anyway. The ES&S Ivotronic machines are the obvious cause of the contested, and as yet unresolved, 2006 Thirteenth Congressional District contest.

Remember the problems with the hanging chads in the Florida recount of the 2000 Gore - Bush contest? Sequoia Pacific printed the punch cards used in some parts of Florida. Sequoia workers told Rather that management purposely used substandard paper for the cards, and explicitly ordered the pressmen to alter the location of the chads on some cards destined to be shipped to Florida. We now know the 2000 election was sabotaged by a voting machine company.

New York citizens should tell all political candidates to prevent Election Commissioners from buying computerized voting machines.

The Election Commissioners are appointed by and answerable to the County Board of Supervisors or Legislature. Legislative bodies can block deployment of the electronic machines by refusing to fund the purchase of the machines and the many ancillary services they require.

Legislators must put Election Commissioners on notice that they will not approve budget items supporting electronic voting. Additionally, the they could enact a local law prohibiting the use of direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines and requiring that a software independent, voter generated paper ballot be the ballot of record in their county.

Democracy is something you do.

Wayne Stinson

(1) E-Voting Failures in the 2006 Mid-Term Elections prepared by VotersUnite.Org, VoteTrustUSA, VoterAction.Org, and Pollworkers For Democracy. The full report can be found at: (http://www.votersunite.org/info/E-VotingIn2006Mid-Term.pdf):
(2) HD Net, Dan Rather Reports, August 14th 2007