The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.


The nation's clearinghouse for election audit information!



Diebold in California: Who's Responsible? PDF  | Print |  Email
By Warren Stewart, VoteTrustUSA   
February 18, 2006

To the astonishment and disappointment of many, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson has chosen to re-certify both the Diebold AccuVote-OS optical scan and AccuVote-TSx touchscreen machines for use in California's election this year. This in spite of the fact that computer scientists commissioned to do a proscribed but nevertheless revealing report on Diebold's AccuBasic Intepreter determined that aspects of the software that runs both systems is prohibited under federal standards. According to the report the computer scientists, David Wagner, David Jefferson, and Matt Bishop, all members of California's Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board (VSTAAB), advised McPherson that the risks posed by the presence of prohibited "interpreted code" were "manageable" and could be "mitigated" by tightening security around Diebold's voting machines.


In December, McPherson, in response to the revelation that AccuBasic could be used to mask pre-stuffed memory cards as demonstrated in a test election in Leon County Florida, denied certification to Diebold's equipment pending a review the Independent Testing Authority (ITA) laboratory Ciber, Inc. - the same laboratory that had certified the systems in the first place. In a published statement McPherson said "[d]uring a thorough review of the application for the Diebold system currently  pending certification, we have determined that there is sufficient cause for additional  federal evaluation." In a letter to Diebold dated December 20, McPherson noted that "it is the Secretary of State’s position that the source code for the AccuBasic code on these cards, as well as for the AccuBasic interpreter that interprets this code, should have been federally reviewed," and requested that Diebold submit the source code relating to the AccuBasic code on the memory cards and the AccuBasic interpreter to the ITA for immediate evaluation and required this additional review before proceeding with further consideration of your  application for certification in California. He concluded that "[o]nce we have received a report from the federal ITA adequately analyzing this source code, in addition to the technical and  operational specifications relating to the memory card and interpreter, we will expeditiously proceed with our comprehensive review of your application."


In the end the ITA apparently wasn't expeditious enough for McPherson. In a letter to Diebold dated February 17, McPherson admitted that "[t]o date, we have not recieved a report from the federal ITA, nor have we received any information regarding the status of its review from the federal ITA." Apparently the "resource constraints at the ITA" precluded the review of the AccuBasic source that was somehow overlooked during the original certification process. No problem - the Secretary of State certified them anyway. After all, no one seriously thought the "Independent" Testing Authority would act in any way that was detrimental to a valued client like Diebold. This way they are spared the uncomfortable and onerous job of explaining why it doesn't matter that Diebold's software is in violation of federal standards.


While McPherson's decision to side with Diebold will no doubt have significant and well-deserved fallout in November, it seems that, in the short term, he made the politically expedient decision. With a special election for Duke Cunningham's seat scheduled for April and statewide primaries in June, McPherson chose to bow to pressure from county clerks eager to buy Diebold. As Ian Hoffman notes in an Oakland Tribune aritcle this morning:

The decision is likely to set off a buying spree for as many as 21 counties, more than a third of the state, as local elections officials rush to acquire one of only two voting systems approved for use in the 2006 elections. Registrars and clerks prefer having voting systems for at least six months before conducting a statewide primary like the one in June, partly because it is California's most complicated and error-prone type of election.

But wait! Why on earth would any county spend millions of taxpayer dollars on a system that is clearly in violation of state and federal law and risk the legal exposure of using illegal voting machines?
California: State Senator Bowen On Decision To Re-Certify Diebold PDF  | Print |  Email
By California State Senator Debra Bowen   
February 17, 2006
"How the Secretary can re-certify the Diebold machines when they don’t comply with California law, they violate the standards set by the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) that the Secretary said he intended to follow, and he still doesn’t have the report back from the ITAs that he said he was waiting for is beyond me."

That’s how Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), the chairwoman of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment, & Constitutional Amendments Committee, reacted to today’s decision by the Secretary of State to re-certify Diebold’s electronic voting machines for the 2006 elections.

"Last December, the Secretary announced with great fanfare that he was sending the Diebold machines back for review by the Independent Testing Authorities (ITAs) because the memory cards those machines rely on hadn’t been reviewed," continued Bowen.  "Now, contrary to what he said two months ago, he’s approving the Diebold machines without waiting for the report from the ITAs.  Instead, he’s basing his decision on a supposedly 'independent state audit' that no one has seen before today.  There’s a March 1 public hearing for four other voting machine vendors before their machines can be certified for use in California, so what was the rush to certify Diebold and side-step a public hearing on this issue?"
Diebold's Press Release Makes The Most of California's "Conditional" Certification PDF  | Print |  Email
By Diebold Election Systems   
February 17, 2006

Today, the California Secretary of State's Office certified, with conditions, use of the AccuVote-TSx and AccuVote-OS from Diebold Election Systems for use in California elections in 2006. The decision comes on the heels of a report by the University of California at Berkeley and the Voting System Technology Assessment Advisory Board (VSTAAB) relating to the AccuBasic code found in the firmware of the Diebold AccuVote-OS and AccuVote-TSx.


After the completion of the state and federal certification requirements, as well as a detailed study of the voting components, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson requested that Diebold undergo an additional security analysis of the source code resident on the system's memory card. Computer scientists at UC Berkeley conducted the additional security review of the memory card code for both systems. The independent reviews concluded that the voting systems can be securely used for upcoming elections, but the report did suggest additional enhancements that Diebold will include with the system during 2006.

"I commend the hard work of Secretary of State McPherson and his staff. Diebold Election Systems has been open and forthcoming in its dealings with the Office of the Secretary of State in California, as well as with local California elections officials, and is committed to supporting its California customer counties," said Dave Byrd, president of Diebold Election Systems, Inc. "We have confidence in our technology and its benefits, and we look forward to helping administer successful elections in California and elsewhere in the country."
Secretary of State McPherson has introduced a 10-point Statewide Electronic Voting System Standards requirement which is part of the very thorough state certification process. These standards include escrowing Diebold's system software, and conducting a high-volume system accuracy and reliability test. Diebold has met these standards and Diebold's touch-screen system with a voter-verifiable paper audit trail printer passed the high volume test with 100 percent election result accuracy, and is the only such system to pass this stringent testing requirement. The accuracy and reliability of Diebold's systems is supported by the many successful election result recounts performed over several years of successful operation and by California's own parallel monitoring accuracy tests involving the AV-TSx system, which has repeatedly demonstrated a 100 percent accuracy rate.


The systems remain secure when operated in accordance with established procedures, an assertion supported by the UC Berkeley report. Diebold Election Systems wholeheartedly agrees with the security procedures applicable to the certification, such as: require election administrators to update the cryptographic keys on every AV-TSx machine prior to deployment in an election; and deploying strict procedural safeguards to prevent anyone from gaining unsupervised access to a memory card. Moreover, Diebold will immediately implement the following enhancements:

- Vote counter arithmetic checks in the AV-OS firmware, providing further security to protect against memory card tampering.
- Incorporation of strong cryptography to digitally sign the AccuBasic reporting script on the AV-OS memory card in order to detect any attempted tampering, similar to the protection used in the AV-TSx system.
Diebold will certify and issue an updated firmware release in the short term that incorporates the updates described above.
California: Secretary of State Bruce McPherson Grants Certification to Diebold with Conditions PDF  | Print |  Email
By California Secretary of State Press Release   
February 17, 2006
McPherson requires additional use procedures and security measures

Secretary of State Bruce McPherson (pictured at right) today announced his decision to certify with conditions the Diebold TSX and Optical Scan (OS) voting systems for use in California’s 2006 elections. The decision comes after months of thorough review of both voting systems, their compliance with both state and federal laws and the completion of an additional security analysis by independent testers from computer labs at the University of California, Berkeley.

“As the State’s chief elections official, the decision to certify voting systems is a very serious responsibility, and a number of factors must be carefully weighed before I determine whether to grant certification,” said Secretary McPherson. “This is precisely why I created 10 strict standards that must be met for a voting system to be certified, making California’s process the most stringent in the nation. We have applied these standards and after rigorous scrutiny, I have determined that these Diebold systems can be used for the 2006 elections.”

Mikel Haas, San Diego County Registrar of Voters said, “I appreciate Secretary McPherson’s leadership in establishing what must be the most comprehensive and rigorous certification process in the nation. To comply with new federal and state laws regarding elections, we need a new and different set of tools and Secretary McPherson made sure we got those tools.” San Diego is home to California’s first federal election of 2006, a special congressional vacancy election to be held in April.
California To Certify Diebold? PDF  | Print |  Email
By Warren Stewart, VoteTrustUSA   
February 17, 2006

One day after Secreatary of State Bruce McPherson, and representatives of voting machine vendors and their testers refused to attend a hearing on voting machine testing and certification, there are reports that McPherson has announced on a conference call with election officials that he intends to certify equipment from Diebold Election Systems - with certain "conditions". Neither the certification nor the conditions could be confirmed with the Secretary of State's office.


It has always been a foregone conclusion that McPherson would devise some justification to allow the 17 California Diebold counties to use their equipment in the rapidly-approaching elections this year. It was only a question of how that justification would be formulated. In the wake of the Harri Hursti Hack in Florida last December, which exploited the presence of prohibited 'intepreted code' in Diebold's software architecture, McPherson wisely sent the Diebold system back to the Independent Testing Authority that had certified them for review. There has been no public response from the ITA.


We eagerly await the official word from the Secreatary of State. 

Why Is San Francisco Rolling The Dice With Sequoia? PDF  | Print |  Email
By Warren Stewart, VoteTrustUSA   
February 17, 2006

The Rules committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors held an enlightening hearing into the status of San Francisco's conversion to a new voting system vendor. District Five Supervisor Ross Mirkahimi (pictured at right) led a probing and focused discussion that included testimony from Department of elections Director John Arntz and Election Commissions President Matthews, represenatives of Sequoia Voting Systems and ES&S as well as Steven Hill, of FairVote - the driving forcing behind San Francisco's adoption of ranked-choice, or instant runoff, voting. San Francisco faces a particularly challenging situation in preparing for primaries in June and the general election in November. On top of new federal accessibility mandates and state requirements for a voter verified paper audit trail faced by all California counties, the San Francisco charter calls for ranked-choice voting. Mikrahimi forcefully explained as the hearing began the importance of not only meeting federal, state, and local requirements but also the rightful expectation of confidence in the administration of the upcoming election.

After a controversial selection process last year, Arntz announced that Sequoia Voting Systems would replace ES&S as the provider of voting equipment for San Francisco last fall. While Mirkahimi stated early on that the purpose of the hearing was not to consider the merits of one vendor's product over another it was difficult to avoid questioning the wisdom of the decision to award the contract to Sequoia. The Sequoia system that Arntz wants to spend over $10 million in taxpayer money on has only last week received federal qualification and have begun the state certification process this week. As for certified software to handle a ranked-choice election? Well, that will be part of a different certification process that will begin with submission to federal testing on May 31st.

Meanwhile, ES&S is not only currently certified, they have actually successfully run San Francisco’s ranked choice district elections last November. The ES&S representative explained that since the city already owns the basic equipment, all of which is certified and has already managed a ranked-choice election, it would be relatively simple, and inexpensive to run San Francisco’s elections on ES&S equipment. For HAVA compliance the city would have to purchase AutoMark ballot-marking devices. While the Optech Eagle precinct scanners that the city owns are not state certified as a configuratiion, they could be used as a stand-alone device, with ballots counted centrally rather than at the precinct for the June primaries, as is being done in Santa Barbara County. By November the city could migrate to M-100 precinct based optical scanners.


This system would also have the benefit of a thoroughly auditable voting system in which all voters marked paper ballots that could at least potentially be read without the mitigation of proprietary software.

California: Vendors, Testers, and Secretary of State Decline Invitation To Voting System Hearing PDF  | Print |  Email
By Warren Stewart, VoteTrustUSA   
February 14, 2006

California State Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), chair of the California Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee, will hold a public hearing on electronic voting systems at 1 p.m. in the Menlo Park City Council chambers, 801 Laurel St. At the hearing, expert witnesses will be asked about flaws in the California's current system of certifying voting systems.

"The federal testing process is notoriously weak and it’s done in secret,” Sen. Bowen said. "These supposedly "independent testing authorities" (ITA) are not only paid for by the voting machine industry, but they also conduct their tests behind closed doors."

Panelists will include researchers from around the country including Aviel Rubin, Professor of Computer Science and Technical Director, Information Security Institute, Johns Hopkins University; Dan Wallach, Professor of Computer Science, Rice University; David Dill, Professor of Computer Science, Stanford University and Founder of the Verified Voting Foundation and; Peter Neumann, Principal Scientist Computer Science Lab, SRI International; Sonia Arrison, Director, Technology Studies, Pacific Research Institute; Freddie Oakley, Yolo County Clerk-Recorder; and Warren Slocum, San Mateo County Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder.

Notable by their absence are representatives of the major voting machine manufacturers and the laboratories that test voting systems software and hardware. While specific individuals were not contacted, the ITA laboratories and voting machine manufacturers with California contracts were invited to send representatives and all declined.


"There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of problems with electronic voting machines that have failed to record people’s votes accurately, which begs the question of how these machines are certified for use in the first place,” said Bowen. “The refusal of the ITAs and the voting machine vendors to show up at a Senate hearing to talk about the certification issues is unacceptable and it should be unacceptable to anyone who wants to ensure California has voting systems that are secure, reliable, and accurately tally people’s votes. I’m not sure what steps I’ll need to take to get the vendors, the ITAs, and the Secretary to appear before the committee, but I’m certainly looking at my options.”


Also absent will be California Secretary of State Bruce McPherson. According to Senator Bowen's office, the Secretary of State was asked to attend the meeting himself or to send experts on the issue. He declined to do either. David Jefferson, Chair of the California Voting Systems Technical Assessment and Advisory Board was not invited.


In a statement circulated today Senator Bowen commented that "incredibly, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson is siding with Diebold and the other electronic voting machine manufacturers by refusing to appear at Thursday's hearing or to even send a representative. It seems unbelievable, but it's true!"
California: San Francisco Election Director Plans To Use Uncertified Voting Machines PDF  | Print |  Email
By Steven Hill   
February 14, 2006
The San Francisco Division of Elections has announced its intention to sign a voting system contract with Sequoia Voting Systems for equipment that is not yet certified by the state or to current FEC voting system standards. Section 19250 of the California Election code not only prohibits the purchase of unapproved voting systems, it prohibits the contracting for one. Multiple counties in California have broken the law by contracting for voting systems that they hope will become approved. In addition, all the contracts should have a provision where the vendor by signing the contract asserts the voting system contracted for meets all local, state, and federal laws. By signing such a contract, the county also must assert that all local, state, and federal laws have been obeyed in the creation and signing of the contract. The Rules Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors have scheduled a hearing for Feb. 16, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. at City Hall to assess progress in readying voting equipment from newly selected vendor Sequoia Voting Systems in advance of the upcoming November election. Citizens concerned about the integrity of elections in San Francisco are urged to attend.

San Francisco Department of Elections Director John Arntz (pictured at right) has announced its plans to switch voting equipment vendors from Election Systems and Software (ES&S) to Sequoia Voting Systems. Unfortunately, Sequoia's equipment is not yet certified by the Secretary of State for the June primary election for either Chinese language, people with disabilities (as now required by federal law), a voter verified paper trail (also now required by state law), or even the many ballot types used in the June primary. They also do not have their equipment certified by the Secretary of State for the November elections' use of ranked choice voting (as required by San Francisco's charter). In short, the Department of Elections and its new vendor are in a race against time to get their equipment certified for both the June primary and the November Ranked-Choice Vote election.

Even if Sequoia has received a positive software code review from the federal Independent Testing Authority, that's only the first of many hurdles to go. And that federal approval is only for the June primary election, it does not include approval for November's ranked choice voting election, which will require additional approval from federal testing authorities before use. Reported the Secretary of State has expressed concern via a public memo to Sequoia that makes it clear that there is a strong possibility that Sequoia will not be ready by the June 2006 primary election with the equipment the city is buying from Sequoia (though the contract is not yet signed, and perhaps it should not be signed if their equipment is not ready).

California: Human Relations Commission of Palo Alto Unanimously Adopts Voter Confidence Resolution PDF  | Print |  Email
By Dave Berman,   
February 10, 2006

This article was posted at It is reposted here with permission of the author.


In the heart of Silicon Valley last night the Human Relations Commission of Palo Alto, CA voted unanimously to adopt the Voter Confidence Resolution (VCR) based on the declaration first developed here in the GuvWurld Blog. Commission Chair Shauna Wilson said that "since the Federal Government does not appear to be taking the lead on Voter Confidence, local initiatives are necessary in order to encourage a participatory democracy."

GuvWurld has been promoting the VCR since April 2004. The first major success came on July 20, 2005 when the City Council of Arcata, CA became the first in the nation to adopt this groundbreaking statement. The strategy behind the VCR has always called for a growing number of communities to adopt their own customized version based on the original template. See the Guide to the Voter Confidence Resolution for more details on the vision for collectively withdrawing the Consent of the Governed.

Wilson says Palo Alto's City Council is now likely to consider adopting the VCR though there is no date set yet and consideration does not guarantee passage. Bay Area readers are strongly encouraged to exert their influence on the Council by whatever means available. For contact info click here.

California: State Senator Bowen Introduces Measure to Improve Election Audits PDF  | Print |  Email
By California State Senator Bowen Press Release   
February 06, 2006

Audit Process and the Accuracy of Election Results


Closing a looping in the auditing procedures used by California’s elections officials is the goal of SB 1235, which was introduced today by Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), the chairwoman of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee.

“Forty percent of Californians vote by absentee ballot and thousands of others take advantage of in-person early voting opportunities before every election, so the fact that some counties exclude more than half of the ballots cast in any given election from the auditing process is fairly unnerving,” said Bowen.  “The manual audit is designed to ensure the electronic voting machines and the ballot counters tallied the results correctly, but there’s absolutely no way to conduct a meaningful audit if you’re only re-counting half of the votes.”

Under California law, elections officials are required to conduct a public manual tally of the ballots cast in at least 1% of the precincts to check the accuracy of the votes tabulated by the electronic or mechanical voting systems.  The law also requires the precincts subject to the audit to be randomly selected by elections officials, but it doesn’t define “random.”

California: Senator Bowen To Hold Hearings on "Open Source voting" and Voting System Certification PDF  | Print |  Email
By Senator Bowen Press Release   
February 03, 2006
[Link to Press Release] Questions about whether California should move toward using electronic voting systems that rely on “open source software” and how exactly voting systems are tested and certified for use will be the subject of two hearings scheduled today by Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), the chairwoman of the Senate Elections, Reapportionment & Constitutional Amendments Committee.

“If we want people to have confidence that their votes are being counted accurately, the process we use to certify machines for use in this state and the systems themselves need to be open, accessible, and completely transparent,” said Bowen, a long-time open government advocate and the author of the 1993 measure that put all of the Legislature’s bills, analyses, and voting records on the Internet. “Nationwide, only 48% of the people are confident their votes are actually being counted correctly or being counted at all and you don’t build confidence in our electoral system by leaving people in the dark. To restore people’s faith in the system and ensure ballots are tallied accurately, we need to turn on the lights and let people see the nuts and bolts of how the technology works and how it’s tested for accuracy.”

The first hearing on February 8th will focus on the open source software issue. “Open source software” has been around for several decades, but it’s become more popular in recent years. Some of the more well-known names in the open source software world are Firefox (an Internet browser), Linux (an operating system), and Red Hat (which sells and supports a version of Linux for businesses). Witnesses will include experts on the benefits and shortcomings of open source software in general, businesses and government agencies that rely on open source software, experts on the challenges of using open source software in an electoral setting, and voting machine vendors. The hearing will be in Room 112 at the State Capitol and will begin at 9:00 a.m.
California: Several E-voting Systems OK'd, But Diebold On Hold PDF  | Print |  Email
By Ian Hoffman, Staff Writer, Oakland Tribune   
February 02, 2006

Four major touch-screen makers clear national tests, line up for state review

This article appeared on InsideBay Area on February 2, 2006.


After months of anxiety for California elections officials, they learned Wednesday that nearly a half-dozen voting systems could be ready for purchase and use in the June primary elections.

The state's chief elections officer, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson, had wielded the power of the nation's largest voting market in ordering U.S. voting-machine makers to finish private, national testing by Tuesday.

Manufacturers balked, but the market pressure worked: By day's end, all but one major U.S. maker had cleared national testing and now is lined up for California review.

Only Diebold Election Systems Inc., which has struggled more than two years for California approval, still was in national testing Wednesday for its new, flagship voting system. But state elections officials said Diebold still could clear that final hurdle and supply voting equipment to nearly one-third of California counties, including Alameda, San Joaquin and Marin.

Local elections officials voiced some relief. Each voting system still faces examination and mass testing — a kind of mock election run on dozens of machines to verify their reliability.

California: Memo And Questionaire To Registrars of Voters PDF  | Print |  Email
By Bruce McDannold, CA Office of Voting Systems Technology Assessment   
January 31, 2006

The following memo and questionaire were sent to Registrars of Voters in California counties on January 24, 2006 (although incorrectly dated 2006).

January 24, 2005 [sic]
To:  County Clerks/Registrars of Voters
From: Bruce McDannold, Interim Director, Office of Voting Systems Technology Assessment
Subject:  Status of Voting Systems and Questionnaire
As we approach the June 2006 primary, it is critical that we maintain an open line of communication between the Office of the Secretary of State and each county elections official.  In an effort to ensure that you are aware of the status of each voting system pending certification for use in California, we are providing you with the following voting system application status report.
As you know, the Office of the Secretary of State has given each voting system vendor a target date of January 20, 2006 for submission of a completed application, and January 31, 2006 for completion of federal testing.  These target dates were provided to the voting system vendors in accordance with deadlines provided by each of you for placement of new systems prior to the June 2006 primary.  We will continue to provide each of you with updates as the review and certification process for each system progresses.  Additionally, for regular updates on the status of individual systems, please also check the Secretary of State's website. (PDF)
As of Friday, January 20, 2006, the following applications for certification have been received by the Secretary of State’s Office:
• ES&S - Unisyn/InkaVote PBC
• SEQUOIA VOTING SYSTEMS - AVC Edge Voting System Version 5.0
• POPULEX – Digital Paper Ballot Voting System
The current status of the above applications is as follows:

California: Secretary of State Requests Voting System Contingency Plans PDF  | Print |  Email
By Shane Mizer, The Eureka Reporter   
January 31, 2006

Humboldt County election officials could see longer hours come election night if the Independent Testing Authority decides to issue an unfavorable review of a component found inside Diebold Inc.’s AccuVote-OS voting machine. In anticipation of the results, expected to be received by Secretary of State Bruce McPherson on Tuesday, local election officials are crossing their fingers.

“There’s always hand counts, but I don’t see that, (considering) the time involved, as a desirable alternative at all,” Humboldt County Registrar of Voters Carolyn Crnich said.

On Tuesday, the day after McPherson paid a visit to Humboldt County election officials and the Board of Supervisors, a memo from the secretary of state’s office was sent to all registrars of voters throughout the state with a questionnaire attached designed to gauge what sort of contingency plans counties will adopt if the ITA does not recommend certifying Diebold’s machine for the upcoming elections.

The request for a contingency plan came as a surprise to election officials, considering that the county is being forced to troubleshoot a problem that the federal and state guidelines have only recently created.


Read the Entire Article at The Eureka Reporter 

California: One Big Electoral Mess... PDF  | Print |  Email
By Brad Friedman, BradBlog   
January 21, 2006
As Revealed by California State Senate Hearings on Transparency in Elections

This article appeared on BradBlog on January 21, 2006. It is reposted here with permission of the author.

'Warts on Parade' as Voting Registrars Discuss Problems with Diebold, Sequoia, ES&S and Many Other Electronic Voting Systems...
"Turn around and look at all the people behind you," Bowen said gesturing at a gallery full of voting activists. "These are all people who care about transparency in the elections process. It's not about me knowing or you knowing, it's about anybody else in the state of California who cares about elections to assess for themselves what's going on."
-- "Officials assess e-voting glitches: Confidence in electronic systems may be wavering" Oakland Tribune, 1/19/06
Such was the sometimes contentious, sometimes exasperating atmosphere, apparently, in Sacramento this week when State Senator Debra Bowen, transparent election champion and Democratic candidate for Secretary of State convened a hearing on the current electoral mess in the Golden State. The hearing was held by the Senate Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments Committee which she chairs.

County Election Registrars from all over the state were called to give a report on how things are going (not well, apparently) and Election Integrity advocates filled the gallery to witness the goings on.
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next > End >>

Results 76 - 100 of 120
California Resources
Election Administration
Diebold Tests 2005
Get Involved
: mosShowVIMenu( $params ); break; } ?>
State Pages
District of Columbia
New Jersey
New Hampshire
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
West Virginia
Puerto Rico
: mosShowVIMenu( $params ); break; } ?>