Painting Happy Faces on Black Boxes

[Guest guest]

http://www.alternet.org/election04/19423/

 

Painting Happy Faces on Black Boxes

By Dianne Farsetta, AlterNet

 

Posted on August 2, 2004,

http://www.alternet.org/story/19423/

 

Last week it was reported that nearly all of

Miami-Dade County's records of votes cast on

electronic voting machines in the 2002 gubernatorial

primary were lost (the information later turned up,

but serious questions remain), and that Florida's

Republican Party was warning voters, " Electronic

voting machines do not have a paper ballot.... Make

sure your vote counts. Order your absentee ballot

today. " That's two more heavy straws added to the back

of an already unhappy camel.

 

It's amazing how far the reputation of electronic

voting has fallen. On November 9, 2000, Texas-based

e-voting company Hart InterCivic bragged, " Electronic

voting and reporting can be instrumental in avoiding

the situation we're seeing in the Presidential

election.... If Florida had used an e-voting system,

we'd know the winner already, and there would be a

party going on right now in Austin or Nashville. "

 

Actually, the Florida 2000 debacle was due, in part,

to an e-voting glitch. In a Florida precinct where

just over 400 people voted, machines registered 2,813

votes for Bush and negative 16,022 votes for Gore. USA

Today reported that on election night " the decision

desks of the five networks and the Associated Press...

were looking at models that included the negative Gore

count. "

 

As the undeniably sorry state of U.S. elections and

the strong civil rights, disabled rights and voting

rights activism pushed Congress to pass the Help

America Vote Act (HAVA) in October 2002, e-voting

companies were celebrating what one industry analysis

called a " tremendous market opportunity. "

 

Around the same time, expert critiques of and

troubling incidents with e-voting systems multiplied

to the point of attracting major media attention. In

response, the " only trade association representing the

broad spectrum of the world-leading U.S. [information

technology] industry " urged e-voting companies to

unite under a public relations banner, and the

Information Technology Association of America (ITAA)

took the lead.

 

The ITAA lobbies on behalf of its more than 400 U.S.

corporate and 50 foreign association members. Its

political action committee focuses on taxes,

outsourcing and other issues important to high-tech

industries. ITAA's Enterprise Solutions Director,

Michael Kerr, developed an E-voting Industry Coalition

Draft Plan in late 2002, to " create confidence and

trust, " " promote the adoption of technology-based

solutions, " and " repair short-term damage done by

negative reports and media coverage. " The plan

advocates outreach to media, elected officials, those

" involved in the purchase decision, " academics, the

general public, " international counterparts, " and

government contractors (in that order) to promote

electronic voting as the " gold standard. " Kerr's plan

concludes by stressing that e-voting companies could

benefit from ITAA's " sophisticated government affairs

and public relations apparatus " and " track record of

lobbying for federal funding. "

 

Activist Bev Harris obtained the ITAA plan and posted

it on her website, blackboxvoting.org. Kerr

subsequently downplayed its importance, calling it

" just a standard trade association plan, " according to

Wired News. But other activists who joined an industry

conference call reported that ITAA president Harris

Miller said the plan was carefully worded, because " we

just didn't want a document floating around saying the

election industry is in trouble, so they decided to

put together a lobbying campaign. "

 

In October 2003, Kerr told Technology Daily that the

e-voting companies had not yet decided whether to

implement his plan, but that he expected a decision

" fairly soon. " On December 9, ITAA announced the

formation of the Election Technology Council (ETC),

directed by Michael Kerr. ETC's founding members are

Advanced Voting Systems, Diebold Election Systems,

Election Systems & Software, Hart InterCivic, Sequoia

and Unilect.

 

At ETC's launch, Hart InterCivic head David Hart said

the group formed just when " voters are beginning to

realize the benefits of electronic voting. " But

Computerworld quoted Hart giving a different

rationale: " We came together because our environment

has become chaotic.... We need to be able to speak as

an industry in a single voice on the areas being

regulated.... We want to be part of the debate and

tell our industry's side of the story. There's a lot

of misinformation. "

 

In an interview with PR Watch, Michael Kerr called ETC

" still kind of formative... we've obviously been

tracking the security debate. " But he identified some

priorities, including making the " state certification

process more uniform and faster " and securing a seat

on the Technical Guidelines Development Committee, a

body assisting with the development of voluntary

federal voting systems standards. Kerr said ETC offers

" an industry wide perspective, " free from " the

marketing or sales perspectives of individual

vendors. "

 

When asked about security concerns, Kerr responded,

" There are many things that should reassure people who

use electronic voting.... The critics are focused on

hypothetical scenarios... not on how the system is

actually implemented. " Although " no technology is

invulnerable, " he claimed " there have been no

documented security breaches with electronic voting in

an election. "

 

One indication of ETC's influence came from

Wilmington's News Journal in December 2003. Written by

the Delaware elections commissioner and titled " Voting

Machines Are Reliable, " the article warned: " Some

people are riding a bandwagon wanting receipts of

their votes so they know they have been cast, and some

states are obliging that trend. That opens the door

for tampering with voting machines to switch and lose

votes as well as 'fix' the paper receipts. " The piece

ended, " Contact my office... for additional

information by the Election Technology Council. "

 

The Election Assistance Commission, the federal body

overseeing HAVA implementation – which generated alarm

recently when its chair asked for a contingency plan

to delay elections in case of a terrorist attack –

held its first public hearing on electronic voting in

May. Although there was a vendor's panel, ETC's

" unified voice " was not heard as such. The day before

the hearing, however, ITAA " released a survey that

found 77 percent of registered voters were either 'not

very concerned' or 'not concerned at all' about the

security of election systems, " according to Associated

Press. Computer scientist Aviel Rubin dismissed the

ITAA survey, stating, " Would they ask questions about

the safety of a medical procedure of patients or of

doctors? They should ask computer security experts

about computer security questions. "

 

The ITAA/ ETC response to " Computer Ate My Vote "

rallies in 19 states across the country in mid-July

may be indicative of a new strategy: discredit the

opposition. Harris Miller told Computerworld, " It's

not about voting machines. It's a religious war about

open-source software vs. proprietary software. " Miller

compared listening to e-voting critics – whom he

characterized as open-source proponents, ignoring the

concerns of such broad-based groups as the League of

Women Voters – to " asking a bunch of clergymen what

they think of premarital sex. "

 

By January 2006, states must comply with HAVA mandates

for updated and accessible voting machines, among

other requirements. With big money at stake – nearly

$4 billion is allocated to states under HAVA – the

electronic voting industry is sure to intensify its PR

war. The problem is, if the camel's back breaks, so

does the cornerstone of our democracy.

© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights

reserved.

View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/19423/