Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Deep-rooted Voting Irregularities Persist, Watchdogs Say

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

A

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:56:51 -0600

Deep-rooted Voting Irregularities Persist, Watchdogs Say

 

 

 

 

http://newstandardnews.net

 

 

Deep-rooted Voting Irregularities Persist, Watchdogs Say

by Catherine Komp (bio)

 

 

Citing a recent government appraisal of the nation’s election

systems and evidence of continued abuse and potential fraud, groups

championing free and fair elections say the US still has a long way to go.

 

Nov 10 - Although this was an " off-term " election year, voting-rights

advocates, computer scientists, and politicians watched the process

closely as more districts used electronic voting machines, which many

blame for irregularities during the 2004 presidential election.

 

Many of those same problems reportedly occurred again this year, when

an estimated 30 percent of voters used touch-screen voting machines --

technically known as direct recording electronic (DRE) systems -- the

majority manufactured by the companies Diebold, Sequoia, and Election

Systems & Software.

 

According to local media reports, officials at a precinct in Fulton

County, Georgia removed three machines after voters said their votes

registered for different candidates. In Roanoke County, Virginia,

people at several precincts reported that their selection for

democratic candidates registered as votes for republicans in both the

governor’s and state attorney general race. And in several Ohio

precincts, electronic machine malfunctions and problems getting

machines running forced a number of polling places to open late. (in

every single instance reported in 2004 election, it was always that

the vote went to republican instead of democrat. Every one of the

irregularities benefited republicans. This is probably next to

impossible to be random)

 

As groups continue to monitor this technology, civil rights and public

advocacy organizations say voter intimidation and suppression continue

to block would-be voters from the polls. Strict identification

requirements, lack of ballots and instructions in various languages,

and absentee restrictions along with intimidation and misinformation

campaigns continue to disenfranchise Americans.

Federal Investigation Confirms E-voting Problems

 

A recent General Accountability Office investigation confirms that

security, design, and reliability flaws do exist with current

electronic voting machines and systems. The 95-page report concluded

that with certain electronic voting machines, ballots and audit logs

could be modified without detection, computer passwords were easily

guessed, and system locks were easily picked. (duh...we knew that

before election 2004, right after election 2002)

 

The GAO, which is the investigative arm of Congress, also found that

vendors installed uncertified machines, local polling places did not

correctly configure the systems, and operational failures occurred on

Election Day 2004. Most disturbingly, the report states that with some

electronic systems it was possible to alter how a ballot looks and

works so that votes for one candidate could be recorded for another.

 

A bipartisan group of US Congress members requested the GAO

investigation in May 2004, including Congress member Henry Waxman

(D-CA), who said the security of electronic voting machines needs to

be improved quickly.

 

" The report makes clear that there is a lack of transparency and

accountability in electronic voting systems †" from the day that

contracts are signed with manufacturers to the counting of electronic

votes on Election Day, " said Waxman in a statement. " State and local

officials are spending a great deal of money on machines without

concrete proof that they are secure and reliable. American voters

deserve better. "

 

Many states and counties bought new e-voting machines before security

and reliability issues could be addressed.

Lillie Coney, associate director of the Electronic Privacy Information

Center, said that in the rush to qualify for federal funding under the

Help America Vote Act, which was passed in the wake of the contested

2000 election, many states and counties bought new machines before

security and reliability issues could be addressed. She said there was

a three-month lapse between the date that HAVA funding was issued and

federal standards for voting systems were established.

 

Coney added that the HAVA funding for new voting systems was a

" one-shot deal, " leaving states and counties with the bill for

replacing faulty equipment and providing upkeep for software and

computer systems.

E-System Transparency and Certification

 

Another major criticism is that corporations are tightly guarding

their proprietary software, shielding methods for registering,

storing, and tabulating votes from public oversight.

 

Dr. Aviel Rubin, professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins

University, is concerned with this lack of transparency. " For

starters, the manufacturers are not allowing public review of their

systems and software, " Rubin told The NewStandard. " Furthermore, I can

think of nothing less transparent than a computer without a paper

record. Can you look at a computer and tell me what's going on inside

it? I cannot, and I have a Ph.D. in computer science. "

 

Rubin is also the technical director of the Johns Hopkins Information

Security Institute, which was awarded a $7.3 million National Science

Foundation grant last summer to improve the " reliability and

trustworthiness " of electronic voting systems. Rubin, a vocal critic

of Diebold voting machines, made headlines in 2003 after he studied

leaked source code for that company’s software and exposed numerous

security flaws. He says that certification programs need to be

standardized, that source code should be analyzed carefully, and that

security " red teams " should be hired to try hacking the systems to

find weaknesses.

 

" We need to have more confidence in the security of these systems, and

the current system where vendors pay their own certifiers who check

them against outdated standards, is not going to cut it, " said Rubin.

 

The GAO report echoed these concerns about system certification.

Currently, only 13 states require national certification testing of

their electronic voting machines. Beyond this, the GAO report states

that a national accrediting program should be established to evaluate

the non-federal, independent organizations that will be certifying the

systems. Both of these responsibilities fall under the

presidential-appointed Elections Assistance Commission, created by

HAVA to help states with elections improvements.

 

While the GAO’s report found more problems with touch-screen

machines, it stated that someone with access to an optical scanning

device could also falsify election results without detection.

But the GAO report states that efforts by the EAC to improve standards

for security and reliability are falling short of upgrading the

election process before the 2006 federal polls. The GAO adds that

current problems, if left unresolved, may affect the outcomes of

elections, as some allege happened in Ohio during the 2004

presidential campaign.

 

However, US Representative John Conyers (D-MI), who also called for

the GAO investigation, told TNS that the EAC is under-funded and does

not have the resources to satisfy the GAO recommendations.

 

" What’s happening is that we’re moving at a pace so slow, as of

this election next year, we won’t have complied with much of the

things that we know are problematic, " Conyers said.

Verified Voting and Optical Scans

 

While the GAO report may convince lawmakers and elections officials of

the serious problems with new electronic systems, some voting

technology experts say it fails to recommend one of the most crucial

safeguards: voter-verified paper ballots that create a hard copy

record of each vote.

 

Pam Smith, national coordinator for Verfiedvoting.org, an organization

promoting transparent elections, admits that voter-verified paper

ballots will not protect voters if machines fail to boot-up or power

outages occur. But, she said, " if you have [electronic] voting systems

up and running, you need to have voting-verification element in there. "

 

Smith continued, " The key is having the hard copy, because electronic

records are subject to the same kinds of things that happen with your

own computer: data gets lost and scrambled, there are glitches with

software and it doesn’t always behave the way it’s supposed to. "

 

Twenty-five states have passed legislation requiring voter-verified

paper ballots, and fourteen others have bills pending, though Smith

says many districts will not implement the systems until after the

2006 federal elections.

 

Verifiedvoting.org, founded by Stanford University Computer Science

Professor David Dill, also advocates for optical scan systems, the

more widely-used form of electronic voting in which voters record

their selections on paper, and results are tabulated by a computer,

much like standardized tests. Smith says these systems are less

expensive, easier to use, and more reliable.

 

While the GAO’s report found more problems with touch-screen

machines, it stated that someone with access to an optical scanning

device could also falsify election results without detection.

 

Conyers said establishing a paper-verified trial is one his

priorities. But he said security concerns are also important.

 

Conyers introduced legislation last February to amend HAVA to require

verified ballots, standards for voting systems and poll workers, and

open source software for voting software. The Voting Opportunity and

Technology Enhancement Rights Act of 2005 would also establish federal

criminal penalties for any person or corporation " using unfair or

deceptive acts or practices in or affecting voting in federal elections. "

 

Conyers is trying to hold hearings on the bill, which Senator

Christopher Dodd (D-CT) has also introduced in the Senate, but he said

that the Republicans who control Congress are not eager to move

forward. (this says absolutely everything. Why would republicans not

want this bill passed and why are they stalling and why have they been

since 2002? DUH>....)

Beyond New Technology

 

While much attention is focused on technological problems with

electronic voting machines, rights activists are also addressing the

historic problems that keep people from ever reaching the voting

booth. Over the last five years, numerous cases of suppression and

intimidation have been reported across the country including: flyers

and signs giving false information about voter eligibility, polling

places and election dates; physical intimidation from law enforcement

or people impersonating law enforcement; long waiting lines; and

polling places opening late or closing early.

 

Civil rights groups are also working to stop legislative measures that

limit voter access, especially as some states enact strict voter

identification requirements. Julie Fernandez, senior policy analyst

and special counsel for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,

said Georgia’s requirement that all voters have a state-issued ID

would heavily affect low-income people, seniors and people of color

who often do not drive or own a vehicle, and therefore have no license.

 

As previously reported by TNS, a federal judge recently barred Georgia

from enforcing the ID law for this year’s elections, stating it

amounted to an " unconstitutional poll tax. "

 

Fernandez said inadequate language assistance is also a problem in

immigrant communities where there may be limited English proficiency.

And, she said, some states are implementing new requirements on

absentee ballots and same-day balloting that are difficult for many

people to meet.

 

" The logic behind it is that it’s a way to combat fraud, but

essentially it ends up being another barrier, another hoop that people

have to jump through, " said Fernandez. " If you’re working shift

work, or you’re working hourly wage, your ability to get out to vote

on a work day is very much diminished. So in many jurisdictions and

counties around the country, you rely on the ability to effectively

use the absentee ballot process. "

 

Smith of Verfiedvoting.org will be reviewing reports of voting

malfeasance in this year’s election collected through the Election

Protection Program and its toll-free OUR-VOTE hotline. The program was

created by a coalition of legal, civil rights, and social justice

groups to help document and thwart voting irregularities after

widespread problems were documented in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

 

Though this year’s turnout was smaller and the hotline received less

publicity, Smith says the organization’s work to educate and

register voters, and file litigation if necessary, will continue to

grow and develop in anticipation of the 2006 federal elections.

 

© 2005 The NewStandard. See our reprint policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...