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


The nation's clearinghouse for election audit information!
North Carolina Resources
: mosShowVIMenu( $params ); break; } ?>


North Carolina

Is the NCACC President misusing her power to gut NC Elections Act? PDF  | Print |  Email
North Carolina
By NC Coalition for Verifiable Voting   
December 29, 2005
Is Ms. Kitty Barnes Mis-using her position as President of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners to protect a bad decision made in her home county?
Did you know that Catawba County Commissioner Chair Kitty Barnes is asking the Governor to repeal S 223, The Public Confidence in Elections Act? Ms. Barnes, who is also the President of the NC Association of County Commissioners, put this statement on their website:
"the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners has formally requested Gov. Mike Easley's assistance. In a Dec. 22 letter, the NCACC is asking Gov. Easley to convene the General Assembly for a special session so it can consider delaying or eliminating state elections mandates by the Legislature."
The NCACC sent a letter to Governor Easley on Dec 22, 2005 asking for him to call a special session of the Legislature to repeal or amend S223. Meanwhile, Ms. Barnes and her lobbyist, Paul Meyers have been very vocal with tales of impending doom because of the requirements of  S 223. For example:
Wed, Dec. 28, 2005  Headline: Voting machine woes grow as deadline nears: Counties balk at rules; only 1 vendor to fill orders. This article in the Charlotte Observer indicates that the sky is falling... 
The only woes growing are those of Ms. Kitty Barnes. Could it be that the President of the NCACC, Kittie Barnes is misusing her position to protect a very bad decision her county (Catawba) made in ignoring the advice of the State Board of Elections about waiting to purchase voting equipment?
Save North Carolina's E-Voting Law From Diebold! PDF  | Print |  Email
North Carolina
By Electronic Frontier Foundation   
December 29, 2005
North Carolina has one of the most stringent electronic voting laws in the country, the Public Confidence in Elections Act (Senate Bill 223), passed unanimously by the General Assembly in 2005. The law guarantees that, among other things, the source code to electronic voting equipment be made available for security review by state authorities.

More info:
Diebold's letter to North Carolina

Full Text of Public Confidence in Elections Act

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) lawyers have been to court twice recently to defend the law and prevent the voting machine manufacturer Diebold from evading it. Last week, Diebold again admitted that it could not comply with the requirements and withdrew at least temporarily from North Carolina.

Now, voting machine lobbyists led by Diebold are calling for a special session of the General Assembly in order to weaken or even repeal the law. Diebold's lawyers have offered to assist "in getting current Session Law revised, so that all vendors will be able to comply with the State Election Law." Of course, that means watering down the law so that Diebold can sell its machines, despite its refusal to permit full access to all of the software used in its machines.

A Law That Counts PDF  | Print |  Email
North Carolina
By Joyce McCloy, NC Coalition for Verified Voting   
December 29, 2005
"A Florida-style nightmare has unfolded in North Carolina in the days since Election Day, with thousands of votes missing and the outcome of two statewide races still up in the air." -- AP Newswire, Nov. 13, 2004

The sorry state of North Carolina elections became national news late last year. As a result, Senate Bill 223, the Public Confidence in Elections Act, was passed unanimously by the General Assembly in August of this year.

Now that it is time to implement this law, it is coming under attack. It seems that one voting machine vendor and some county commissioners don't like the requirements of the new election integrity law, so they want to change it.

In a letter to the State Board of Elections, Charles Owen, a lawyer for Diebold Election Systems, explained that the company "will be unable to comply with the deadlines imposed by the State Board of Elections in addition to the requirements of state law." He added that Diebold's "difficulty is not with our software, but with the software that is not owned or controlled by Diebold Election Systems Incorporated. This includes operating systems, drivers and myriad other pieces of code that are present in any computer system."

In the cover e-mail to which the letter was attached, Owen helpfully offered "to work with the State Board of Elections…in getting the current Session Law revised, so that all vendors will be able to comply".

Diebold Quits North Carolina - Is It Really About Microsoft? PDF  | Print |  Email
North Carolina
By Joyce McCloy, NC Coaltion for Verifiable Voting   
December 23, 2005
According to their letter to the State Board of Elections, Diebold's reluctance to escrow third-party software in North Carolina that led to them dropping out of the state's voting system procurement process. They were not at liberty, they claimed, to disclose the source code for "operating systems, drivers and myriad other pieces of code that are present in any computer system." Their specific concern is apparently Microsoft Windows CE. They appear to have had no qualms about escrowing Microsoft's source code in other states.

Given that Diebold was decertified in California for misrepresentation to the Secretary of State and for installing uncertified software on the machines, it is easy to be skeptical about their public statements. In this case it seems concerns about proprietary third-party software may have been less of a factor than the "harsh criminal and civil penalties for non-compliance" imposed by North Carolina law.
With Nowhere Left to Hide, Diebold Pulls Out of North Carolina PDF  | Print |  Email
North Carolina
By Matt Zimmerman, Electronic Frontier Foundation   
December 23, 2005

This report was posted on Electronic Frontier Foundation's DeepLinks Blog. It is reposted here with permission of the author.

Following a flurry of litigation that found Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) fighting both alongside and against the state Board of Elections, Diebold on Thursday withdrew from the North Carolina procurement process, ceding the state’s voting machine business to rival ES&S.

In November, Diebold filed suit against the North Carolina Board of Elections in an effort to be exempted from a state requirement that vendors place into escrow (among other things) all source code “that is relevant to functionality, setup, configuration, and operation of the voting system.” The code would be available to the Board of Elections and the chairs of the state political parties for review so that they could look for security vulnerabilities, to the extent they wanted to make such an effort. Diebold argued to the Superior Court that it simply couldn’t meet that requirement, at least in part because they relied so extensively on third party software for critical system functions. EFF intervened in the case on behalf of local voter integrity advocate Joyce McCloy and succeeded in convincing the judge to dismiss the case, leaving Diebold on the hook for criminal and civil penalties if they failed to comply.

Undaunted, and despite Diebold’s admission that it could not meet these requirements, the Board of Elections agreed three days later to certify Diebold.

Diebold's Letter to North Carolina SBOE PDF  | Print |  Email
North Carolina
By Charles Owen, for Diebold Election Systems, Inc.   
December 22, 2005
This letter was attached to a cover email dated December 23, 2005. A PDF of the orginal letter can be downloaded here.

December 20, 2005

Mr. Gary Bartlett
Executive Director
State Board of Elections
6400 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-6400

Re: North Carolina RFP ITS-002724 and Requirements Contained in Session Law 2005-323

In response to your memo dated December 19, 2005 regarding the escrowing of all software for this project I am providing you the following response to the current status of our efforts to move forward with the subject RFP. As you know, DESI publicly stated in our Complaint seeking a Declaratory Judgment that we could not escrow all third-party software. Moreover, we believe that no vendor will be able to comply with the requirements to identify all programmers responsible for creating the third party software to be placed in escrow.  Those requirements impose harsh criminal and civil penalties for non-compliance. As such DESI will be unable to enter into a contract to sell voting equipment in North Carolina without a modification to Session Law 2005-323. DESI’s RFP response explicitly stated that its response was not an offer to contract, but rather an offer to negotiate a contract.

DESI is prepared to work closely with the North Carolina State Board of Elections (“SBE”) in drafting a modification to Session Law 2005-323 that meets the true intent of the legislature while at the same time imposing reasonable requirements on all vendors that are capable of being met, and which will allow DESI to continue to support its loyal customers in the State of North Carolina.
Diebold Cover Email to North Carolina SBOE PDF  | Print |  Email
North Carolina
By Charles (Chuck) Owen, Division Counsel, Diebold Election Systems, Inc.   
December 22, 2005
This cover email accompanied a letter dated December 20, 2005. A PDF of the original email can be downloaded here.

Friday, Dec. 23 2005 5:03 p.m. [sic]

Subject: North Carolina RFP ITS-002724 Contract Requirements

Dear Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Long:

Good Af6ternoon, my name is Chuck Owen, and I am the Division Counsel for Diebold Election Systems, Inc. (DESI). Attached to this e-mail you will find a letter in PDF format for your reference. The substance of the attached letter is to advise you that DESI cannot comply with Session Law 2005-323 as currently drafted, and moving forward to a formal contract would place DESI in a position of violating State law. Therefore, DESI will be unable to move forward in this procurement process, and we want to advise you of this fact sooner than later. DESI does however want to work with the State Board of Elections for the State of North Carolina in getting current Session Law revised, so that all vendors will be able to comply with the State Election Law. Furthermore, DESI desires to continue to provide support to DESI’s loyal customers in the State of North Carolina; however, until the Session Law is revised DESI will not be able to provide such support to its customers. The foregoing is more specifically addressed in the attached letter.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions with regard to the attached letter.


Chuck Owen
Open Letter to North Carolina County Leaders and Officials PDF  | Print |  Email
North Carolina
By Joseph Waymack, Elizabeth City, NC   
December 21, 2005
Before making final decisions on voting equipment, please consider the pervasive argument and disturbing evidence I am putting forward in this letter. Diebold has put on a slick sales pitch for North Carolina counties, but we must not be deceived by their misrepresentations.  Diebold has been in the news quite a bit lately and the situation is not good. North Carolina voters and election officials deserve better than to be sucked into the dangerous territory of Diebold-run elections. Even for those who have used Diebold in the past without too many problems, please understand that purchasing Diebold is like playing Russian roulette; the certain outcome is systemic malfunction and equal-opportunity for fraud. Diebold has left the door open for anyone, of any political affiliation, with a deviant desire to rig an election, a golden ability to do so. This is not part of some ridiculous conspiracy theory; it is a reflection of solid evidence.
Diebold’s AccuVote OS was in use in Leon County, FL until last week. The election director there, Ion Sancho, used and supported Diebold. Reacting to those who said Diebold systems were vulnerable to hacking and fraud, Mr. Sancho allowed activists and a computer scientist to try to rig an election. The results were astounding: Not only were Diebold’s machines able to be hacked into and the outcome of the election reversed, no evidence of a breech was left behind. Had this not been a test, this could have been an election that mattered to all of us and our nation. Those who allow Democracy to be susceptible to subversion either through willful malice or through ignorance and wishful thinking (“It won’t happen here”), risk destroying the very fabric of our nation that so many of our brave men and women have died to protect. This issue transcends political ideologies in this nation. This is about protecting the essence of our Democratic way of life. Read the story.
North Carolina: Don't buy from Diebold PDF  | Print |  Email
North Carolina
By Mike Wilburt, Chairman of the Warren County NC Republican Party   
December 17, 2005
This Letter to the Editor appeared in The Daily Dispatch, a newspaper serving Henderson and Vance counties in North Carolina.

To the editor:

North Carolina's recent history of elections problems raised concerns among citizens, statewide, casting doubt on a process that must be beyond question, beyond suspicion, beyond reproach.

Warren County's own history of elections problems has tainted the county's citizens' opinion of our local board of elections even though the county officials involved have been, thankfully, long removed from office.

It has only been during the past two years that any level of citizen confidence has been restored in the integrity, credibility and competence of the Warren County Board of Elections.
North Carolina Sued for Illegally Certifying Voting Equipment PDF  | Print |  Email
North Carolina
By Electronic Frontier Foundation   
December 08, 2005
Electronic Frontier Foundation Asks Court to Void Approval of Diebold and Others Without Source Code Review

Raleigh, North Carolina (Link to Press Release) - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on Thursday filed a complaint against the North Carolina Board of Elections and the North Carolina Office of Information Technology Services on behalf of voting integrity advocate Joyce McCloy, asking that the Superior Court void the recent illegal certification of three electronic voting systems.

North Carolina law requires the Board of Elections to rigorously review all voting system code "prior to certification." Ignoring this requirement, the Board of Elections on December 1st certified voting systems offered by Diebold Election Systems, Sequoia Voting Systems, and Election Systems and Software without having first obtained – let alone reviewed – the system code.

"This is about the rule of law," said EFF Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "The Board of Elections has simply ignored its mandatory obligations under North Carolina election law. This statute was enacted to require election officials to investigate the quality and security of voting systems before approval, and only approve those that are safe and secure. By certifying without a full review of all relevant code, the Board of Elections has now opened the door for North Carolina counties to purchase untested and potentially insecure voting equipment."
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>

Results 16 - 29 of 29
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; } ?>