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
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
New York Democracy War
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.
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.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Citizen Advisory Board Proposed to BOE
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.
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
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.
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,
Sunday, November 16, 2008
HCPB and Citizen Advisory Boards proposed to SOS Cortes-Vazquez
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
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
VIP Letter to Supervisor Brandow, Chairman of Board of Supervisors, Rules & Legislation Committee
The Voting Integrity Project
A public interest initiative of The Peacemakers of Schoharie County, Po Box 214, Cobleskill, NY 12043
13 October 2008
Supervisor Donald Brandow, Chairman
Rules & Legislation Committee
Dear Supervisor Brandow,
We are communicating with you today because of the Rules & Legislation Committee’s responsibility for Board of Elections oversight.
Enclosed you will find a document, “ Democracy in New York State Election Administration,” which outlines what we have observed to be a basic organizational weakness of New York’s election administration system.
You will please note the suggestion that the creation of a Citizen Advisory Board for Election Administration (CABEA) could mitigate some of the problems identified.
The Voting Integrity Project would like the opportunity to discuss this concept with the Rules & Legislation Committee. Ideally, members of your committee would contribute to the development of a proposal for consideration by the entire Board of Supervisors.
If the Rules & Legislative Committee recognizes merit in the concept of a Citizen Advisory Board for Election Administration the next step would be consultation with Board of Elections staff to identify possibilities and parameters for cooperation.
We are looking forward to discussing this proposal with you and your committee in the not too distant future, perhaps in mid-November following Election Day.
For the Voting Integrity Project,
Wayne R. Stinson, Coordinator
I can be reached at airhead@midtel.net or 518-287-1463.
Cc: Rules & Legislation Committee members
The Argument for Citizen Advisory Boards for Election Administration
Democracy in New York State Election Administration?
12 October 2008 Wayne R. Stinson, Coordinator, Voting Integrity Project
In New York State two private restricted membership organizations have been given exclusive responsibility for election administration. Both the state and local Boards of Elections are staffed with representatives of the two major partisan groups, the Republican and Democratic parties. These two organizations often behave quite undemocratically, and their continual combat to control ballot access is responsible for our extremely complex election law.
If the drafters of New York’s Election Law expected the two partisan organizations to represent all New York State citizens, they failed. The Boards of Elections, staffed only by loyal members of these two groups, do not, indeed can not, effectively represent the whole of their constituencies:
More than one quarter of eligible citizens are not registered to vote and therefore have no official partisan affiliation but they do have a stake in the effective administration of elections.
More than one-fifth of registered voters do not specify a party affiliation but they too have a stake in our elections.
A majority of registered voters who report a party affiliation do not strongly identify with that partisan group and are not active in partisan affairs but they do care how our elections are managed.
And, most significantly, voters reporting a minor party affiliation are not represented by the Democratic and Republican staff of the Boards of Elections but you can be sure they are intensely interested in how elections are administered.
Exacerbating this problem is the fact that these two major partisan organizations do not exist to make democracy happen. They are more about power and control than openness or sharing. We have often enough heard of ugly partisanship resulting in disenfranchisement of some voters or litigation to block ballot access. We must acknowledge that our present quasi-governmental election administration system actually delivers control of the election administration chicken coop to the partisan foxes.
New York’s Election Law assigns authority to administer elections to the state and local Boards of Elections. Consequently, the partisan Election Commissioners believe they are autonomous and they generally are not responsive to legislative bodies or the public. Boards of Elections, while theoretically under the fiscal oversight of a legislative body, are actually far beyond effective control because of the lawmakers’ political dependence upon or deference to the partisan leaders. So it seems quite unreasonable to expect lawmakers to provide true oversight or to effectively represent citizens with respect to election administration issues.
I believe we can agree that administration of our elections is properly a function of government, however, the existing Board of Elections system fails to serve government or our democracy. New York must reform its election administration system and that reform would best be accomplished by comprehensive study followed by the legislation necessary to produce truly non-partisan, independent and professional election administration.
For those of us not comfortable waiting for a complete revamp of the Election Law there are democracy enhancing initiatives which could be put in place now. Legislative bodies could choose to exercise control over election administration by asserting their budgetary prerogatives. Lawmakers might even flex their oversight muscles some while attempting to fulfill their fiscal responsibilities.
One initiative which could enhance legislators’ oversight efforts while at the same time helping to fulfill democracy’s need for transparency is the creation of Citizen Advisory Boards for Election Administration. A cursory internet search turns up 28,000 Citizen Advisory Boards. The examples I perused were government agencies or community-government cooperative projects. Obviously, a Citizen Advisory Board is not some wild way-out-there idea, it‘s been done again and again.
Such a board, composed of volunteers, appointed by the local legislative body, could serve the lawmakers by complementing their oversight duties. A Citizen Advisory Board could also somewhat insulate lawmakers from partisan pressure while at the same time assisting the Board of Elections with a variety of outreach services such as recruitment and training of poll workers.
Citizen Advisory Boards could be implemented under New York's existing system without amending election law as long as care is taken to avoid usurping Board of Elections or legislative authority. If such advisory boards are to be effective, however, enabling resolutions must make clear to all affected that the service and findings of the Citizen Advisory Board should be respected and adhered to whenever possible. Ideally, for statewide uniformity and effectiveness, the establishment of such boards, membership composition, responsibilities and authority should be delineated by state law.
Citizen Advisory Boards have the potential to bring elections back under the watchful eye of the citizens who need to understand and trust election outcomes. If care is taken to appoint only individuals who are truly representative of the community, and the board works diligently to maintain communication with the community, a Citizen Advisory Board will enjoy the respect of lawmakers, election officials and citizens alike.
The long term goal needs to be comprehensive reform of election administration but Citizen Advisory Boards can be a good start in our reform efforts. Partisan organizations serve an important organizational purpose for citizens who want to be involved in supporting candidates, however, partisan groups and their operatives should not continue administering our elections. With respect to our elections these groups and their individual operatives need to be restricted to candidate or observer status and nothing more.
The Voting Integrity Project
A public interest initiative of The Peacemakers of Schoharie County, Po Box 214, Cobleskill, NY 12043
13 October 2008
Supervisor Donald Brandow, Chairman
Rules & Legislation Committee
Dear Supervisor Brandow,
We are communicating with you today because of the Rules & Legislation Committee’s responsibility for Board of Elections oversight.
Enclosed you will find a document, “ Democracy in New York State Election Administration,” which outlines what we have observed to be a basic organizational weakness of New York’s election administration system.
You will please note the suggestion that the creation of a Citizen Advisory Board for Election Administration (CABEA) could mitigate some of the problems identified.
The Voting Integrity Project would like the opportunity to discuss this concept with the Rules & Legislation Committee. Ideally, members of your committee would contribute to the development of a proposal for consideration by the entire Board of Supervisors.
If the Rules & Legislative Committee recognizes merit in the concept of a Citizen Advisory Board for Election Administration the next step would be consultation with Board of Elections staff to identify possibilities and parameters for cooperation.
We are looking forward to discussing this proposal with you and your committee in the not too distant future, perhaps in mid-November following Election Day.
For the Voting Integrity Project,
Wayne R. Stinson, Coordinator
I can be reached at airhead@midtel.net or 518-287-1463.
Cc: Rules & Legislation Committee members
The Argument for Citizen Advisory Boards for Election Administration
Democracy in New York State Election Administration?
12 October 2008 Wayne R. Stinson, Coordinator, Voting Integrity Project
In New York State two private restricted membership organizations have been given exclusive responsibility for election administration. Both the state and local Boards of Elections are staffed with representatives of the two major partisan groups, the Republican and Democratic parties. These two organizations often behave quite undemocratically, and their continual combat to control ballot access is responsible for our extremely complex election law.
If the drafters of New York’s Election Law expected the two partisan organizations to represent all New York State citizens, they failed. The Boards of Elections, staffed only by loyal members of these two groups, do not, indeed can not, effectively represent the whole of their constituencies:
More than one quarter of eligible citizens are not registered to vote and therefore have no official partisan affiliation but they do have a stake in the effective administration of elections.
More than one-fifth of registered voters do not specify a party affiliation but they too have a stake in our elections.
A majority of registered voters who report a party affiliation do not strongly identify with that partisan group and are not active in partisan affairs but they do care how our elections are managed.
And, most significantly, voters reporting a minor party affiliation are not represented by the Democratic and Republican staff of the Boards of Elections but you can be sure they are intensely interested in how elections are administered.
Exacerbating this problem is the fact that these two major partisan organizations do not exist to make democracy happen. They are more about power and control than openness or sharing. We have often enough heard of ugly partisanship resulting in disenfranchisement of some voters or litigation to block ballot access. We must acknowledge that our present quasi-governmental election administration system actually delivers control of the election administration chicken coop to the partisan foxes.
New York’s Election Law assigns authority to administer elections to the state and local Boards of Elections. Consequently, the partisan Election Commissioners believe they are autonomous and they generally are not responsive to legislative bodies or the public. Boards of Elections, while theoretically under the fiscal oversight of a legislative body, are actually far beyond effective control because of the lawmakers’ political dependence upon or deference to the partisan leaders. So it seems quite unreasonable to expect lawmakers to provide true oversight or to effectively represent citizens with respect to election administration issues.
I believe we can agree that administration of our elections is properly a function of government, however, the existing Board of Elections system fails to serve government or our democracy. New York must reform its election administration system and that reform would best be accomplished by comprehensive study followed by the legislation necessary to produce truly non-partisan, independent and professional election administration.
For those of us not comfortable waiting for a complete revamp of the Election Law there are democracy enhancing initiatives which could be put in place now. Legislative bodies could choose to exercise control over election administration by asserting their budgetary prerogatives. Lawmakers might even flex their oversight muscles some while attempting to fulfill their fiscal responsibilities.
One initiative which could enhance legislators’ oversight efforts while at the same time helping to fulfill democracy’s need for transparency is the creation of Citizen Advisory Boards for Election Administration. A cursory internet search turns up 28,000 Citizen Advisory Boards. The examples I perused were government agencies or community-government cooperative projects. Obviously, a Citizen Advisory Board is not some wild way-out-there idea, it‘s been done again and again.
Such a board, composed of volunteers, appointed by the local legislative body, could serve the lawmakers by complementing their oversight duties. A Citizen Advisory Board could also somewhat insulate lawmakers from partisan pressure while at the same time assisting the Board of Elections with a variety of outreach services such as recruitment and training of poll workers.
Citizen Advisory Boards could be implemented under New York's existing system without amending election law as long as care is taken to avoid usurping Board of Elections or legislative authority. If such advisory boards are to be effective, however, enabling resolutions must make clear to all affected that the service and findings of the Citizen Advisory Board should be respected and adhered to whenever possible. Ideally, for statewide uniformity and effectiveness, the establishment of such boards, membership composition, responsibilities and authority should be delineated by state law.
Citizen Advisory Boards have the potential to bring elections back under the watchful eye of the citizens who need to understand and trust election outcomes. If care is taken to appoint only individuals who are truly representative of the community, and the board works diligently to maintain communication with the community, a Citizen Advisory Board will enjoy the respect of lawmakers, election officials and citizens alike.
The long term goal needs to be comprehensive reform of election administration but Citizen Advisory Boards can be a good start in our reform efforts. Partisan organizations serve an important organizational purpose for citizens who want to be involved in supporting candidates, however, partisan groups and their operatives should not continue administering our elections. With respect to our elections these groups and their individual operatives need to be restricted to candidate or observer status and nothing more.
Voting Machine Position Statement Clarification & Extension
Clarification and extension of Peacemakers Voting Machine Position Statement
Re: hand counting of ballots and auditing of election results.
From the previously adopted “Concerning Electronic Voting Machines” Position Statement(1):
… a simple, inexpensive, user-friendly, trustworthy and officially recognized voting system already exists. A system which requires no certification testing. A system which all citizens can understand and have confidence in. That is the Paper Ballot voting system(2). A ballot scanner can be trusted to count the ballots quickly, but only if the scanner is programmed and maintained by municipal workers, not by a private corporation, and the hand counted tally of paper ballots remains the official record of the election.
While not explicitly stated in the above excerpt, our expectation is that the hand counting of the paper ballots would take place at the polling place immediately upon closing of the polls. The counting should be performed by the same authorized and trained poll workers who had supervised and secured the polling place during voting. Ballot counting must be observed by representatives of the candidates and other interested citizens as conditions allow.
It is expected that any discrepancy between the hand count tally and a scanner tally will be immediately reconciled (explained and documented) while all interested parties are present. This is necessary due to the difficulty of maintaining acceptable chain of custody security after the polls close and the ballots are forwarded to election HQ. Chain of custody issues also demand that vote tallies be posted in public view at the polling place for the benefit of any interested citizen wishing to compare polling place tallies with those recorded at central tabulation.
Using this protocol the trustworthiness of the tallies is enhanced and the chain of custody risks are mitigated. Since the hand count of the paper ballots is the official record of the election(3), the scanner tallies can then serve as confirmation of the hand counts. Think of it as a redundant counting system which is dramatically more secure and trustworthy than either system standing alone.
Regarding required audits: The hand count might be thought of as a 100% audit of the scanner count or, preferably, the scanner count should be considered an automatic, contemporaneous electronic audit of the hand count.
(1) Referenced Voting Machine Position Statement reproduced on the reverse of this document.
(2) New York State Election Law Sec. 7-106 describes traditional paper ballot system.
(3) Election Reform & Modernization Act of 2005 created a new NYS Election Law Sec. 9-211 which requires audits and specifies that the results of a total manual count will be the record of canvass.
10/1/08 approved by the Peacemakers Action Committee.
Re: hand counting of ballots and auditing of election results.
From the previously adopted “Concerning Electronic Voting Machines” Position Statement(1):
… a simple, inexpensive, user-friendly, trustworthy and officially recognized voting system already exists. A system which requires no certification testing. A system which all citizens can understand and have confidence in. That is the Paper Ballot voting system(2). A ballot scanner can be trusted to count the ballots quickly, but only if the scanner is programmed and maintained by municipal workers, not by a private corporation, and the hand counted tally of paper ballots remains the official record of the election.
While not explicitly stated in the above excerpt, our expectation is that the hand counting of the paper ballots would take place at the polling place immediately upon closing of the polls. The counting should be performed by the same authorized and trained poll workers who had supervised and secured the polling place during voting. Ballot counting must be observed by representatives of the candidates and other interested citizens as conditions allow.
It is expected that any discrepancy between the hand count tally and a scanner tally will be immediately reconciled (explained and documented) while all interested parties are present. This is necessary due to the difficulty of maintaining acceptable chain of custody security after the polls close and the ballots are forwarded to election HQ. Chain of custody issues also demand that vote tallies be posted in public view at the polling place for the benefit of any interested citizen wishing to compare polling place tallies with those recorded at central tabulation.
Using this protocol the trustworthiness of the tallies is enhanced and the chain of custody risks are mitigated. Since the hand count of the paper ballots is the official record of the election(3), the scanner tallies can then serve as confirmation of the hand counts. Think of it as a redundant counting system which is dramatically more secure and trustworthy than either system standing alone.
Regarding required audits: The hand count might be thought of as a 100% audit of the scanner count or, preferably, the scanner count should be considered an automatic, contemporaneous electronic audit of the hand count.
(1) Referenced Voting Machine Position Statement reproduced on the reverse of this document.
(2) New York State Election Law Sec. 7-106 describes traditional paper ballot system.
(3) Election Reform & Modernization Act of 2005 created a new NYS Election Law Sec. 9-211 which requires audits and specifies that the results of a total manual count will be the record of canvass.
10/1/08 approved by the Peacemakers Action Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
