Voter Verification Newsletter Volume 2, Number 9, on August 4, 2004

[Guest guest]

> Voter Verification Newsletter

> Volume 2, Number 9, on August 4, 2004

 

> *** Please forward this newsletter to your friends!

> *** Invite them to visit http://www.verifiedvoting.org/ ***

 

*** For this and previous newsletters, see

> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/newsletter/ ***

 

 

> CONTENTS

> * Volunteer for TechWatch

> * Coming Soon: Election Incident Reporting System

> (EIRS)

> * Nationwide 'Computer Ate My Vote' Rallies Recap

> * State-By-State Progress on Verified Voting

> * Federal Legislative Updates

> * Verified Voting Needs You! Volunteer to Help

> * Online Donations to 501©(3) Verified Voting Foundation

> * Subscribe and Un Information

 

 

> VOLUNTEER FOR TECHWATCH

> Are you a technology professional interested in

> election integrity?

> TechWatch volunteers will be trained to assist in

> logic & accuracy

> testing of voting technology by election officials

> prior to election

> day, watch polls on election day (assigned to a

> single polling place or

> central election office), and be dispatched to

> polling places to

> investigate election day incidents. This is an

> extraordinary opportunity

> to employ your skills to make a difference in

> preserving our democracy.

> TechWatch volunteers can chronicle election problems

> at this upcoming

> election and future elections, as well as for

> follow-on litigation and

> policymaking, in a way that most poll watchers

> cannot. More than 900

> technologists have already volunteered (400+ in just

> the last few

> days!), but it will take thousands to cover priority

> states and key

> counties, starting with the Florida primary on

> August 31 and continuing

> through to the November 2 general election. Visit

> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/techwatch/

 

 

> COMING SOON: ELECTION INCIDENT REPORTING SYSTEM

> (EIRS)

> If voting irregularities occur in November, who will

> know?

> We're not waiting for the answer. The Verified

> Voting Foundation and the

> Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility are

> collaborating with

> other voter protection organizations on a new

> Election Incident

> Reporting System (EIRS). During the recent July

> " code sprint " in San

> Francisco, members of the core team came up with a

> design and schedule

> to deploy a useful system in time for this fall's

> election. We're

> planning to roll out the EIRS system in time for

> Florida's primary on

> August 31. Please contact us if you or someone you

> know has time or

> resources to apply to this innovative and essential

> project. Please use

> this form:

> https://www.verifiedvoting.org/contact.asp

 

 

> NATIONWIDE 'COMPUTER ATE MY VOTE' RALLIES RECAP

> On Tuesday, July 13, activists held rallies in 24 US

> cities and hundreds

> of thousands of petition signatures to protest the

> use of unverified

> computer voting machines that may be employed in the

> November

> presidential election. Critics of electronic voting

> called on election

> officials to avoid technology that some say could

> yield inaccurate or

> unverifiable results in November's presidential

> election.

> Circulate this Pledge for Election Integrity to

> election officials:

> http://vevo.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/pledge.htm

> For press coverage from the rally, see

>

http://www.verifiedvoting.org/media/coverage/rallycoverage.asp

>

> For rally reports and pictures, click on any red

> state at

> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/verifier/

 

 

> STATE-BY-STATE PROGRESS ON VERIFIED VOTING

 

> California:

> * VerifiedVoting.org along with candidate Linda

> Soubirous and a

> bi-partisan group of three voters are plaintiffs in

> a court case to

> secure release of voting data from the March 2004

> Riverside County

> primary, maintaining that the county refused to

> conduct a proper recount

> of an election with a razor-thin margin:

> http://verifiedvoting.org/article.asp?id=2514

 

> * The State Senate unanimously passed SB 1438 to

> amend the California

> Election Code to require voter-verified paper

> ballots. The bill is now

> awaiting action in the Assembly.

 

> * On June 15, California became the first state to

> adopt standards for

> an accessible, voter-verified paper audit trail

> (AVVPAT) that will be

> required for all electronic voting machines:

>

http://www.ss.ca.gov/executive/press_releases/2004/04_040.pdf

>

> * On July 6, in Benavidez v. Shelley, a federal

> district court rejected

> a legal challenge to stricter security requirements

> established by

> California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley

> following the numerous

> problems that occurred with those electronic voting

> machines during the

> March primary election in California. Of the ten

> California counties in

> which DREs (electronic voting machines) were

> conditionally de-certified,

> seven have now agreed to meet the additional

> security requirements

> imposed by Secretary of State Kevin Shelley,

> including provision of

> paper ballots at the polling place for those voters

> uncomfortable with

> voting on e-voting machines:

> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.asp?id=2457

> Shelley's statement:

>

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/ks_dre_papers/decert1.pdf

>

> Verified voting litigation roundup:

> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/legal/

 

> * Critics of electronic voting are suing Diebold

> Inc. under a

> whistleblower law, alleging that the company's

> shoddy balloting

> equipment exposed California elections to hackers

> and software bugs:

> http://verifiedvoting.org/article.asp?id=2512

 

> Florida:

> * Almost all the electronic records from the first

> widespread use of

> touch-screen voting in Miami-Dade County have been

> lost, then later

> found again, fueling concerns that the machines are

> unreliable as the

> presidential election draws near. Three years after

> Gov. Jeb Bush

> announced a new voting system that he called " a

> model for the rest of

> the nation, " Florida is grappling with some of the

> same problems that

> threw the 2000 presidential election into chaos, as

> well as new ones

> that critics say could cause even more confusion

> this November. A

> coalition called for statewide audit of voting

> systems, especially

> touchscreens. The state refused, then Senator Nelson

> jumped in and asked

> again. Despite the proven value of such studies,

> Florida's officials

> lack sufficient concern to move forward. While every

> other state worries

> about becoming the " next Florida " -- apparently

> Florida does not:

> http://verifiedvoting.org/article.asp?id=2632

 

> Georgia:

> * Though they claim to have been running perfect

> elections since

> installing statewide paperless e-voting in 2002,

> somehow in 2004

> Georgia's officials still can't get precincts up and

> running on time,

> resulting in the disenfranchisement of voters who

> get turned away. When

> machines fail to boot up properly or perform as

> expected, officials

> usually call these " glitches " (implying it's no big

> deal) but they still

> happen in every electronic election. Although

> precincts had a few paper

> ballots available for emergency use, those quickly

> ran out. The election

> has been challenged in one area due to an apparent

> ballot definition

> problem -- a former candidate whose name wasn't

> removed from the ballot

> in time received 1800 votes -- more than the margin

> of difference

> between the top two candidates. See

> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.asp?id=2619

 

 

> New Jersey:

> * Voters who are worried that their ballots won't be

> counted accurately

> on Mercer County's new electronic voting machines

> would be allowed to

> file absentee ballots in the November election under

> a proposal made

> public by the county administration.

> More at

> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.asp?id=2625

 

 

> New Mexico:

> * A coalition of citizens and organizations have

> taken action in

> Bernalillo County, where the majority of the state's

> voters live, urging

> election officials to stop buying electronic voting

> machines that do not

> provide a voter-verified paper ballot. In

> particular, they are calling

> the County Clerk Mary Herrera (+1 505 768-4090) and

> asking her to cease

> using unreliable touchscreen technology and instead

> adopt voter-verified

> paper ballots. Paperless voting machines have come

> under considerable

> controversy in this state when 12,000 votes --

> larger than the turnout

> in some NM counties -- were " lost " (then later

> found) in early elections

> due to a tabulation problem. See VerifiedVoting New

> Mexico:

> http://www.vvnm.org/

 

> Ohio:

> * The Verified Voting Foundation, the Electronic

> Frontier Foundation,

> and other organizations asked a federal judge to

> avoid requiring

> paperless e-voting machines as the sole remedy for a

> lawsuit challenging

> the use of punch card and certain kinds of optical

> scan systems. The

> judge for the case has delayed hearings until

> November 1, 2004:

> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.asp?id=2629

 

> * If there are concerns that Ohio voters may receive

> unequal treatment

> because some counties will still use lever or

> punchcards in November,

> their best remedy may be to require more uniform

> administration and

> instruction to voters in all counties. If court

> action requires Ohio

> counties to change voting systems, then according to

> this report a

> change to an optical scan or paper system -- not

> DREs -- would provide

> the most improvement:

>

http://vevo.verifiedvoting.org/vendors/studies/20040601_Ansolabeherepaper.pdf

>

> * After a successful campaign by VerifiedVoting.org,

> Ohio's CASE group,

> nationwide partners, and many thousands of Ohio

> citizens to delay

> purchases of paperless e-voting machines in Ohio,

> Secretary of State J.

> Kenneth Blackwell halted deployment in the remaining

> three counties

> considering purchases of Diebold Election Systems'

> electronic voting

> devices for Ohio's 2004 general election:

> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/article.asp?id=2588

> Check out the map on VerifiedVoting.org's Ohio

> alert:

> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/alerts/ohio/

 

> South Carolina:

> * In November, elections officials nationwide expect

> the highest turnout

> -- for a tightly contested, four-year, presidential

> election -- yet

> South Carolina's State Election Commission (SEC)

> plans a hasty

> deployment of newly purchased, paperless e-voting

> machines. Apparently

> " working around " state election law that gives

> counties the right to

> make their own selection of voting equipment from a

> list of certified

> options, the SEC chose ES & S to provide iVotronic

> voting machines to 14

> counties -- awarding the contract on July 19, 2004.

> The controversy

> began in April when a competing e-voting vendor

> protested the first

> contract awarded for possible improprieties in the

> bid process and by

> counties seeking their right to choose their own

> equipment, resulting in

> rebidding for the contract. The State Law

> Enforcement Division announced

> an investigation earlier this month. South Carolina,

> unlike many states,

> did not apply for an extension when seeking their

> HAVA funding.

> Meanwhile, concerns abound -- the chair of the SEC,

> Marcy Andino, has

> ties to the " winning " vendor according to one state

> senator, and as SC

> activist Brett Bursey of the SC Progressive Network

> said, " We're being

> asked to trust our vote to a computer system

> purchased and developed by

> people who are under an ethics investigation. "

> NOTE: Is your state or county discussing the

> purchase of e-

> voting machines within the next six months? We'd

> like to organize to

> educate decisionmakers and get the public involved

> in the

> decisionmaking. Please let us know at:

> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/contact.asp

 

> FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE UPDATES

> House of Representatives:

> Since the last update in our May newsletter (Vol. 2

> No. 7), Congressman

> Rush Holt's " Voter Confidence and Increased

> Accessibility Act " (H.R.

> 2239), which would require all voting systems to

> provide a

> voter-verified paper ballot (VVPB) by November 2004,

> has attracted 10

> more cosponsors (for a total of 150); A

> significantly weaker VVPB bill

> by Congressman Steve King of Iowa (H.R. 4187) has

> attracted 36

> cosponsors, 5 of whom are also cosponsors of HR

> 2239. Including the

> authors and cosponsors of both bills, this means

> that 183 members of the

> House (or 41.8%) have gone on record supporting

> legislation to require

> all voting systems to provide a VVPB. Both bills

> remain bottled up in

> the House Administration Committee, chaired by Rep.

> Bob Ney of Ohio.

> In response to an inquiry regarding the possible

> need for federal

> legislation to permit delaying national elections in

> case of a terrorist

> attack on election day, the House passed HR 728 on

 

> July 22, expressing

> the sense of the House that our national elections

> will never be

> postponed in the face of terrorist threats or

> attacks, nor will any

> individual or agency be given the authority to

> postpone the national

> election.

> Responding to growing national concerns regarding

> the security and

> integrity of electronic voting systems, the House

> recently held several

> hearings:

 

> June 24: " Testing and Certification for Voting

> Equipment: How Can the

> Process Be Improved? "

>

http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/ets04/index.htm

>

> July 7: " Electronic Voting Security " , House

> Administration Committee

> (transcripts not yet available)

> July 20: " Electronic Voting Machine Technology

>

http://reform.house.gov/TIPRC/Hearings/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=1217

>

> SENATE BILLS

> The five Senate bills requiring VVPBs

> (Voter-Verified Paper Ballots)

> have a total of 15 Senators (or 15% of the Senate),

> who are now on

> record as supporting VVPBs. All of these bills are

> awaiting action by

> the Senate Rules committee, chaired by Senator Lott.

> Of the bills, only

> S.2437 has so far attracted bipartisan support. We

> believe it has the

> best chance of passage in this session of Congress.

> In late July, S.2437

> picked up two new cosponsors, Sen. Durbin (IL) and

> Sen. Sununu (NH) in

> addition to the previous co-sponsor, Sen. Reed (NV)

> and the author Sen.

> Ensign (NV).

> We urgently need to pick up more support in the

> Senate for VVPB

> legislation, so please contact your Senator if he or

> she is not already

> on board. All senators except for the four above

> should be asked to

> co-sponsor S.2437. If a senator is already

> sponsoring S.2313 (the bill

> by Sens. Graham, Clinton, and Boxer), you can point

> out that there is no

> conflict in also supporting S. 2437.

> Also, one third of the Senators are up for

> re-election and and those

> running for another term will be returning to their

> states to campaign

> during the recess. This will create many

> opportunities to ask about

> electronic voting and VVPBs at public meetings,

> which is really

> effective at getting attention of politicians and

> helps educate your

> fellow citizens about the issue. It will also be

> extremely helpful to

> ask candidates who have not yet been elected about

> their position on

> VVPBs.

> Whenever someone running for office makes a public

> statement about their

> position on VVPBs, we'd like to know -- so please

> drop us a line.

 

For your reference, the following Senators are up for

> re-election this year

> (* indicates a Senator already supporting VVPB, and

> # indicates a Senator who is retiring):

 

Bayh (IN), Bennett (UT), Bond (MO),*Boxer

> (CA), #Breaux (LA), Brownback (KS), Bunning (KY),

> #Campbell (CO), Crapo (ID), Daschle (SD), Dodd (CT), Dorgan (ND),

> #*Edwards (NC), Feingold (WI), #Fitzgerald (IL), #*Graham(FL), Grassley (IA),

> Gregg (NH), #*Hollings (SC), Inouye (HI), *Leahy (VT), *Lincoln

> (AR), McCain (AZ), Mikulski (MD), #Miller (GA), Murkowski (AK), Murray

> (WA), #Nickles (OK), *Reid (NV), *Schumer (NY), Shelby (AL), Specter

> (PA), Voinovich (OH), Wyden (OR).

 

> See the " State Pages " at verifiedvoting.org to see

> where your

> Representative or Senator stands on VVPB

> legislation:

> http://www.verifiedvoting.org/legislation/#state

 

> VERIFIED VOTING NEEDS YOU! VOLUNTEER TO HELP

> Volunteer to support VerifiedVoting.org with your

> unique talents and

> expertise, and meet other volunteers. Whether you

> can spare lots of time

> or only a little, we have a task or project just for

> you!

 

> If you are willing to share your skills as a

> disabled community

> advocate, newsletter editor, graphic artist, web

> programmer, lobbyist,

> researcher, or grantwriter, let us hear from you!

> You can also help by

> getting petitions signed, attending local meetings,

> coordinating events

> or volunteers, meeting elections officials... all

> are welcome.

> Participation is tailored to your interests and

> availability.

 

> DONATE TO VERIFIED VOTING

> We now accept online credit card donations to the

> 501©(3) organization

> called the Verified Voting Foundation, as well as to

> the 501©(4)

> lobbying organization called VerifiedVoting.org.

 

> Once the IRS approves our tax-exemption application,

> donations to the

> Verified Voting Foundation will be retroactively

> tax-deductible to the

> extent permitted by law. Contributions to

> VerifiedVoting.org, however,

> are not and will never be tax-deductible. Besides

> the usual credit cards

> (except for Discover which is still pending on the

> Verified Voting

> Foundation donation page), you can also donate by

> mailing a check or

> using PayPal online. We will gladly accept matching

> gifts from

> employers, stock, bonds, bequests, and in-kind

> contributions.

> With such a wonderful variety of choices, how can

> anyone resist making a

> donation today. For further information, or to

> donate, see:

> https://www.verifiedvoting.org/donate/

 

> Or if you just want to write a check, you can make

> it out to either

> " VerifiedVoting.org " or " Verified Voting Foundation "

> and send it to:

 

> Verified Voting

> 454 Shotwell Street

> San Francisco, CA 94110

> SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE INFORMATION

> To to the Verified Voting newsletter,

> please go to

> https://www.verifiedvoting.org/join/

> To from the Verified Voting newsletter,

> go to

>

https://www.verifiedvoting.org/join/endorserupdate.asp

> Log in, change

> " Email Preference " to None, then click on the Submit

> button at the

> bottom of the web page to complete the

> unsubscription process.

 

> The Verified Voting Foundation and

> VerifiedVoting.org are sister

> nonprofit organizations championing reliable and

> publicly verifiable

> elections. Founded by Stanford University Computer

> Science Professor

> David Dill, the organizations support a requirement

> for voter-verified

> paper trails on electronic voting machines allowing

> voters to inspect

> individual permanent records of their ballots and

> election officials to

> conduct meaningful recounts as needed. For more see

> http://www.verifiedvoting.org

 

> © Copyright 2004, Verified Voting Foundation,

> Inc., and

> VerifiedVoting.org, Inc.

 

> Reproduction for nonprofit purposes permitted with

> attribution to the

> Verified Voting Foundation at

> http://www.verifiedvoting.org

> --

> This is message #9.

> **********

> This list is hosted by the Verified Voting

> Foundation and

> VerifiedVoting.org. For more information about our

> work championing

> reliable and publicly verifiable elections, see

> <http://www.verifiedvoting.org/>.

> Donations accepted at

> <http://www.verifiedvoting.org/Donate/>.

>

>