The Frugal Voting Booth

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

No Fat Lady Song Yet

So you thought we were at the finish line......Nope. Not yet.

23 January '08 and the election integrity advocates watching the goings on of the state Board of Elections in Saratoga were proud of Commissioner Doug Kellner as he tried to hold the board together to do their duty. He failed, the two Republican Commissioners refused to come to the table. They wanted their favored friend, Liberty Election Systems, to be approved and were holding the meeting up while various Albany politicians twisted arms and threatened kneecaps.

Before the Board even began their meeting it was announced that Republican Co-Executive Director Peter Kosinski had left the office and legal assistant Todd Valentine was to replace him. I have no info as to the reason for these personnel moves but the timing causes one to suspect a connection to the voting equipment struggle. We note the Republican side of the board has been championing Liberty from day one. (Another observer notes that Sequoia has also had political champions since early in the game. If so that might partially account for that vendor's success)

Many of us had to leave Saratoga that evening without knowing how the struggle would play out. The next morning we were gratified to hear that the Republicans had joined Kellner in approving three ballot marking systems, all compatible with paper ballots. The joy was short lived however.

Within hours of the vote rumors were heard that at least one of the rejected applicants was planning to litigate their exclusion. And then, on Monday, the authorization for two systems using the AutoMark BMD were recinded by vitue of a vote by the Republican Executive Director, leaving Sequoia the only system standing. Before the end of the week we knew that two vendors were in court attempting to compel the BOE to include their machines.

Should Liberty Election Systems prevail some local Election Commissioners would likely choose this DRE-jury-rigged-to-BMD, a very poor choice. The other litigant, Premier Election Solutions, will be arguing to be reinstated. They probably should be since the AutoMark BMD they feature has been in service in other states for several years and enjoys the acceptance of the disabled community.

The absurdity of this wretched drama is that the three machines initially approved have not been tested and are not certified by the state BOE. These systems are prototypes and are only available by virtue of the pressure applied by the Federal Court. The two systems using the AutoMark BMD (Premier and ES&S) at least have that unit's experience supporting their acceptance. The Sequoia ImageCast is a totally untested BMD mated with a scanner used in Canada.

Several counties have already announced their decision. Schoharie County Commissioners Cliff Hay (D) and Lew Wilson (R) are reported to have chosen the Sequoia within just a couple of days after the BOE met. That same news report quoted the contract total cost as $250,000.00 for eighteen Sequoia units. That's $13,888.00 each unit! A scary high number which seems to indicate the vendors are taking advantage of the federal court's pressure.

Part of the reason for the high price tag is that the vendors offer their equipment as a system comprised of a ballot marking device and a ballot scanner. I understand the Sequoia must be purchased this way while ES&S and Premier will sell the AutoMark BMD alone. Jurisdicitions choosing the AutoMark BMD only for this year are effectively keeping all their options open as to which scanner to select for 2009. This seems to be a sensible course of action.

We'll be revisiting this issue later this week after the courts hear vendor's arguments and render decisions. Oh yeah, the finish line is out there in the fall of 2009. We've got a lot of running and shouting to do before then.

Partisanship, Arrogance, Malfeasance & We Won!

My earliest contact with the NY State Board of Elections with respect to our struggle against electronic voting machines was over three years ago. At that time I delivered a written complaint which included an observation that one machine vendor was receiving favorable treatment. Our complaint was delivered to Chairman Neil Kelleher(R) .

I explained the board's actions could be cause for suspicion and I demanded explanations which might assure NY citizens that the board was not corrupted and was indeed living up to their mission statement. The following from their mission statement:

"...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."

Voting Equipment Selection

Now is the time for lawmakers to act

On 1/23, the NYS BOE will release a list of authorized but untested and uncertified voting equipment from which the Election Commissioners will select a Ballot Marking Device (BMD) to be deployed in every polling place.

County Election Commissioners are required to make their selection no later than 2/8 according to the timeline set by the state BOE. It is important to understand the selection might be made as early as 1/23.

It is almost certain that the very serviceable and previously certified AutoMark BMD will be on that list. The AutoMark is the BMD which is intended to paired with a paper ballot voting system to provide access for the disabled.

It is also very likely that one or more Direct Recording Electronic Voting Machines (DRE) will be on the list as well. In a disturbingly perverse move the state BOE recently agreed to allow the voting machine manufacturers to submit their DREs as BMDs if the vote counting function is disabled and the device prints a full size ballot.

I believe the above perverse ruling was made specifically to help DRE voting machine vendors such as Albany based Liberty Election Systems. We can expect a modified LibertyVote DRE to be on the list of authorized BMDs.

And it is also very likely Schoharie County's Election Commissioners Cliff Hay & Lew Wilson will select the LibertyVote DRE, or any machine other than the AutoMark, in order to avoid committing to a paper ballot voting system. I say “committing” because a major portion of the available HAVA funds will be expended on the BMDs mandated for 2008 deployment.

Re: committing to a system. Because the court ordered HAVA compliance plan requires devices to assist the disabled in every polling place, rural counties, like Schoharie with most polling places with only one voting machine, will effectively be committing to DREs if they choose an experimental BMD created from a DRE.

The Perverse Plan (as formulated by the E.C.s & vendors) goes like this:

A Make Believe BMD (MBBMD) created from a DRE is authorized by the state.

The ECs select the MBBMD and pay some fraction of the usual DRE price and deploys them in 2008.

The state BOE subsequently tests and certifies the DRE on which the MBBMD is based (no one believes the state would not certify machines that the counties have already purchased).

The vendor returns to the county reprograms the MBBMD machine to function as a full functioned DRE and collects the balance due, probably some additional premium fees, and sells the county what ever additional DREs the county E.C.s think they can afford.

The county deploys all the DREs in 2009 and everyone is happy:

Federal District Court Judge Gary L. Sharpe will no longer feel ashamed to be a New Yorker and will sleep well again,

The Justice Dept. lawyers can report to the Bush administration criminal cabal that their mission is accomplished,

The NYS BOE Commissioners can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that they weathered this crisis without being thrown under the bus or into jail…..now all they need to remember is to keep their mouths shut and reap the rewards,

Bobby Witko of Liberty Election Services will have made his daddy proud - he was able to peddle a crappy voting machine that has been rejected in Ireland, The Netherlands and Germany… at an incredibly exaggerated price,

Nedap (manufacturer of the LibertyVote) can rejoice at being able to report to their stockholders their voting machine has been introduced into the USA market, and maybe even show some black ink for that division for the first time in five years. That black ink can’t help but be improved with each election cycle in the US….New York State has a bunch of very valuable electoral votes,

Cliff Hay and Lew Wilson will have broken into the big time. Now if anyone wants to buy a particular election outcome in Schoharie County they will have the means to deliver with much greater efficiency then ever before. Also, if someone is working a state or federal scam they will be able to demand their cut. AND hey, there’s no paper ballots - Happy times are here again!

The only people who might not get what they want is the little people who believe their vote counts - but then it’s only some of those little folk that might not get what they want since the bosses need only switch a few percent of the ballots. Those people who’s vote might get switched won’t know - and what they don’t know won’t hurt them - right?

The only recourse for the little people then is Civil Disobedience (CD) - I say the only recourse because I’m not a violent person. I can not speak for the rest of our citizens who might feel they are not represented because their votes are not being counted...we fought a war over this very problem once before didn't we.

What CD? How about something as simple as "Just Say No! These are our elections and it is our vote we're talking about. We should just say no to electronic voting!

Every citizen needs to take ownership of their individual ballot and demand we use the only system which makes it possible for the voter to mark their own ballot and see their ballot being recorded and counted, the paper ballot system.

I've been telling everyone I encounter that I will refuse to vote using an electronic voting machine. It is not hard to imagine that election administrators and poll workers will have little choice but to provide paper ballots if enough of us demand it. I've printed my own calling card with just that message on it - it works, I recommend it.

Amicus Curiae Brief PR

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 .

Friendly Paper Ballot Voting

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.

An Issue For The Candidates

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