|
New from National Issues -
Federal Legislation
|
|
By Rep. Rush Holt Media Release
|
|
January 18, 2008 |
Legislation Would Reimburse State and Local Jurisdictions That Opt in for Paper Ballots and/or Audits
 Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ, pictured at right) today introduced the Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act of 2008, a plan to allow state and local jurisdictions to opt-in to receive reimbursements from the federal government if they convert to a paper ballot voting system,offer emergency paper ballots, and/or conduct audits by hand counts.
"While the House has not acted on our legislation to require paper ballots and audits for all votes in all states in time for 2008, there is still time to take action to protect the accuracy, integrity, and security of the 2008 general elections," Holt said. "This plan provides an incentive for state or localities that want to do the right thing."
The bill would authorize $500 million to reimburse paperless jurisdictions that convert to paper-based voting systems in 2008, as well those that don't fully convert to a paper-based system but provide emergency paper ballots that would be counted as regular ballots in the event of machine failure. The reimbursements would cover the cost of equipment and cost of developing procedures for using a paper-based system, with or without electronic counting.
Additionally, the bill would authorize $100 million for jurisdictions that conduct audits that meet basic minimum requirements, including the use of a random selection, an independent auditor, at least a 3 percent audit sample, and public observation.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
New from States -
Maryland
|
|
By Save Our Votes Media Release
|
|
January 16, 2008 |
New, Less Expensive System Will Allow for Recounts
Save Our Votes (SOV) sent its congratulations to Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley
today for including in his proposed budget for the next fiscal year
funds for the purchase of a new voting system based on paper ballots
counted by optical scanners in each precinct.
The Governor has
long advocated replacing the state's paperless touch-screen system. His
action today is supported by nearly two-thirds of Maryland voters,
according to a recent statewide public opinion poll by Gonzales
Research. [www.saveourvotes.org/releases]
"We
are delighted that the Governor and the General Assembly have responded
to the voters and moved forcefully to replace our risky system with one
that will be both secure and cost-effective," Robert Ferraro, co-director of SOV said
today.
The
new system will allow voters to ensure that their votes are recorded as
they intend to cast them, and provide a means for independent recounts,
capabilities which are not possible with the current voting system.
This change will bring Maryland
into line with the many other states that have recently abandoned
touch-screen voting in favor of voter-marked paper ballots counted by
optical scanners. Florida expects to have optical scanners in place statewide before this year’s presidential election. California and Ohio have both enacted
severe restrictions on the use of touch-screen voting machines after thorough reviews of their security and reliability.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
New from National Issues -
Federal Legislation
|
|
By New York Times Editorial
|
|
January 16, 2008 |
When Americans go to the polls in November, many will likely have to
cast their ballots on unreliable paperless electronic voting machines.
If the election is close, the country could end up with a rerun of
2000’s bitterly contentious and mistrusted count. In an effort to avoid
another such disaster, Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New
Jersey, plans to introduce a bill this week that would help address the
weaknesses in electronic voting. Congress should pass it without delay.
The flaws of electronic voting machines have been thoroughly documented by academic studies and by voters’ experiences. The machines are far too vulnerable to hacking that could change the outcomes of elections. They are also so prone to mechanical error and breakdown that there is no way to be sure that the totals they report are correct. In some cases, these machines have been known to “flip” votes — award votes cast for one candidate to an opponent.
The solution is for all votes to be recorded on paper records. Voters can then verify that their choice has been accurately reflected — and the paper record can be used as a backup for the electronic machines. Whenever votes are tallied on electronic machines, there should be an audit of paper records as a check on the electronic results. If the paper totals do not match the electronic tallies, something has clearly gone wrong — and the tally of the paper ballots can be treated as the official one.
Read the Entire Editorial at The New York Times
|
|
|
New from States -
Maryland
|
|
By TrueVote Maryland
|
|
January 16, 2008 |
Urges Legislature to Keep Funding in Budget
Today, TrueVoteMD.org thanked Governor Martin O'Malley for including
$3.4 million in his budget to transition Maryland back to a voting
system based on paper ballots counted by optical scanners.
"This is a historic step for election integrity in Maryland. Governor
O'Malley promised to fund the bill and kept his promise. A return to
paper ballots is widely supported by the Maryland voters and will save
the state money by reducing the costs of election administration. It is
a smart fiscal decision as well as a good decision for the health of
our democracy," said Kevin Zeese, Executive Director of
TrueVoteMD.org.
TrueVoteMD.org is the largest election integrity organization in the
state with members in all of the states 23 counties. It has worked for
five years to put in place a voter verified paper ballot. "We are near
the culmination of five years of citizen effort. The final hurdle is
to protect this funding from being cut from the budget by the
legislature. TrueVoteMD.org will be working with the legislature to
ensure this transition is completed," said Zeese. |
|
|
New from States -
New Hampshire
|
|
By Bo Lipari, New Yorkers for Verified Voting
|
|
January 12, 2008 |
New Hampshire has what New York needs
This article was posted at Bo Lipari's Blog and is reposted here with permission of the author.
I fully support calls for a recount in New Hampshire. That's why we want
paper ballots, so we can audit. As far as I'm concerned, audits are
ALWAYS warranted, regardless of the reason. Indeed, this is one of the
reasons why New Yorkers for Verified Voting has worked so hard for paper ballots in New York State
- so we can audit and recount.
That
being said, I personally believe the claims being made by some that
fraud was perpetrated in New Hampshire based on polls are premature.
The majority of people who look closely at elections know that there’s
many reasons why poll results might vary from actual results. The
differences in the New Hampshire polls and the results could easily be
accounted for by undecideds, people who don't want to talk to
pollsters, or simply the inherent inaccuracy of polls. As I learn more
about auditing and talk with statisticians I've come to see that polls
are not sufficient to use as a benchmark for fraud.
While
the majority of advocates in the Election Integrity movement don’t see
anything astonishing about the New Hampshire results, others are saying
that the primary proves that paper ballots and scanners should not be
chosen to replace lever machines in New York State. But there is no
evidence to draw that conclusion. What New Hampshire has that New York
needs is auditable paper ballots. New Hampshire will be able to recount
and audit their election. That’s a very good thing and I hope they do
it soon.
Let me
repeat this, because it's important: I fully support calls for a
recount in New Hampshire, because audits are ALWAYS warranted. Indeed,
this is what we've worked for all these years.
|
|
|
New from States -
Arizona
|
|
By Garry Duffy, Tucson Citizen
|
|
January 12, 2008 |
Pima County Elections Division officials Friday turned over the
computer databases for the 2006 elections to the Pima County Democratic
Party, as directed by the Board of Supervisors earlier this week.
Democrats sought the databases - electronic records of the
county's Diebold-GEMS voting system and ballot tabulating procedures -
to look for irregularities that might show vote tampering.
Party officials also plan to use the information to create a tool
that will automatically analyze elections systems and vote tabulations
for aberrations that could point to elections fraud.
The Democrats prevailed in a lawsuit filed last year seeking the databases.
Elections officials and County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry had refused their request to examine them.
The surrender of the databases to a political party as part of their role as official elections observers may set a precedent.
"This is the biggest release of electronic data files ever in this
country," said John R. Brakey, one of the computer experts assisting
the Democrats in their case.
Read the Entire Article at The Tucson Citizen
|
|
|
New from States -
New Hampshire
|
|
By New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner Press Release
|
|
January 11, 2008 |
Secretary of State William M. Gardner (pictured at right) announced today that Albert
Howard, a candidate for nomination for the office of President of the United
States in the Republican Party Primary and Dennis Kucinich, a candidate for
nomination for the office of President of the United States in the Democratic
Party, have requested a recount of all ballots cast statewide.
Mr. Howard and Mr. Kucinich have satisfied the requirements for
initiating a statewide recount of the Republican and Democratic Primary.
Secretary of State William M. Gardner will estimate the cost of the
recounts, which must be paid by the candidate(s) for the recount to proceed.
Secretary of State Gardner announced that the recounts will
start Wednesday, January 16, 2008.
The time and location for the start
of the recount process will be announced after the estimate has been completed
and payment of the estimated cost has been received.
New Hampshire law, RSA 660:7, provides that “any person for whom a vote was
cast for any nomination of any party at a state or presidential primary may
apply for a recount.” RSA 660:2, IV provides that if the difference between the
vote cast for the applying candidate and a candidate declared elected shall be
greater than 3 percent of the total votes cast in the towns which comprise the
office to be recounted, the candidate shall pay the fees provided in RSA 660:2,
III and shall agree in writing with the secretary of state to pay any additional
costs of the recount.” RSA 660:6 provides that if the person requesting the
recount is declared the winner after the recount or loses by a margin of less
than one percent of the total votes cast, the fees for the recount will be
refunded by the State.
Secretary of State Gardner reports that the last time New Hampshire did a
statewide recount of the results of the Presidential Primary was in 1980.
Unofficial results indicate that Albert Howard received 44 votes for
nomination in the Republican Primary and Dennis Kucinich received 3,901 votes
for nomination in the Democratic Primary. |
|
|
New from States -
New Hampshire
|
|
By Dennis Kucinich Media Release
|
|
January 10, 2008 |
 Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis
Kucinich, the most outspoken advocate in the Presidential field and in
Congress for election integrity, paper-ballot elections, and campaign
finance reform, has sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of
State asking for a recount of Tuesday’s election because of
“unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and
machine-counted ballots.”
“I am not making this request in the
expectation that a recount will significantly affect the number of
votes that were cast on my behalf,” Kucinich stressed in a letter to
Secretary of State William M. Gardner. But, “Serious and credible
reports, allegations, and rumors have surfaced in the past few days…It
is imperative that these questions be addressed in the interest of
public confidence in the integrity of the election process and the
election machinery – not just in New Hampshire, but in every other
state that conducts a primary election.”
Also, the reports, allegations, and
rumors regarding possible vote-count irregularities have been further
fueled by the stunning disparities between various “independent”
pre-election polls and the actual election results," Kucinich wrote.
"The integrity, credibility, and value of independent polling are
separate issues, but they appear to be relevant in the context of New
Hampshire’s votes."
He added, “Ever since the 2000 election – and even before – the
American people have been losing faith in the belief that their votes
were actually counted. This recount isn’t about who won 39% of 36% or
even 1%. It’s about establishing whether 100% of the voters had 100% of
their votes counted exactly the way they cast them.”
Kucinich, who drew about 1.4% of the New Hampshire Democratic primary
vote, wrote, “This is not about my candidacy or any other individual
candidacy. It is about the integrity of the election process.” No other
Democratic candidate, he noted, has stepped forward to question or
pursue the claims being made.
“New Hampshire is in the unique position to address – and, if so
determined, rectify – these issues before they escalate into a massive,
nationwide suspicion of the process by which Americans elect their
President. Based on the controversies surrounding the Presidential
elections in 2004 and 2000, New Hampshire is in a prime position to
investigate possible irregularities and to issue findings for the
benefit of the entire nation,” Kucinich wrote in his letter.
“Without an official recount, the voters of New Hampshire and the rest
of the nation will never know whether there are flaws in our electoral
system that need to be identified and addressed at this relatively
early point in the Presidential nominating process,” said Kucinich, who
is campaigning in Michigan this week in advance of next Tuesday’s
Presidential primary in that state.
|
|
|
New from National Issues -
Voting Rights
|
|
By Bob Bauer
|
|
January 10, 2008 |
This article was posted on Bob Bauer's blog and isreposted here with permission of the author.
Two observations, one framed as a concern, have pushed through to the surface after the Court’s argument in the voter ID case. One is that the Court may find its way out by specifying that any answers lie in as-applied challenges. This is the concern. Another is that the Court stayed away from acknowledging the partisan dimensions of the conflict over ID in Indiana. This has been expressed more as an observation, though it could well qualify as a concern.
On as applied challenges: this is not the best outcome, nor—all things considered—would it be the worst. Paul Smith at argument said it would lead to a “morass.” Oral Argument Transcript at 65. Rick Hasen fears that it could contribute mightily to the spreading volume of election law litigation.
Smith and Hasen are each right, seen from one angle; but from another, if this is all we can hope for, than it might well be just the shock that legislatures deserve. In time, legislators might be encouraged to write laws less vulnerable to being picked apart on an as-applied basis. At any rate, having abdicated their responsibility to write these laws responsibly, on a reasonably neutral basis, they would face the embarrassment, cost and disruption of judicial second-guessing. They might come to do better, particularly if there is editorial and public outcry forcing them to the effort.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
New from States -
Maryland
|
|
By Avi Rubin, Johns Hopkins University
|
|
January 10, 2008 |
This article was posted at Avi Rubin's Blog and is reposted here with permission of the author.
I
attended my Maryland election judge training session today. It was a 3
hours class for returning judges. There was really nothing new for me.
I've already worked 4 elections using the Diebold Accuvote machines,
and we will be using them again this year. I did, however, notice a
change in the tone of the class.
Right up front, the instructor
told us that the three most important factors for us to consider are
"Security, Integrity, and Accuracy". These three things were stressed
throughout the day. The instructor talked about the 20/20 segment where
a hacker was able to change tallies on the machine (I think it was
Harri Hursti), and told us of a new tamper tape that was placed on the
corner of the machine where there is a screw for opening up the casing.
As before, I had a good look at this tamper tape and determined that it
would be extremely difficult to tell if the tape had been voided or
not. I think these tamper tapes are emperor's clothes designed to make
administrators feel good. One of the trainers referred to it as the
"Lou Dobbs seal", in reference to Lou Dobbs' coverage of e-voting
problems leading up to the 2006 election.
|
|
Read more...
|
|
|
