tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46958642413310029872024-03-14T04:43:24.739-04:00Election Transparency CoalitionElection Transparency Coalition, an offspring of Northeast Citizens For Responsible Media, is dedicated to educating and organizing the citizens of New York State and beyond to restore citizen oversight and public control of our elections -- our fundamental democratic right -- that has been undermined by the use of electronic vote-counting systems that tally our ballots in secret, subject to easy and undetectable manipulation.Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-70089227316461782882011-02-22T14:14:00.002-05:002011-02-22T14:54:21.807-05:00NY Assembly District 100: Every Vote Not Counted"We've been taught in schools that every vote counts - and obviously, in this case, every vote did not." - NY Assembly candidate Frank Skartados<br /><br />We recommend the account of the race for NY Assembly in district 100 as related in yesterday's Daily News under the headline <span style="font-style: italic;">Dem Frank Skartados doomed by vague election law crafted by his own lawyer</span>. One of the rationales used by op-scan proponents has been that in close or questionable elections the paper ballots could always be recounted by hand. Yet for the second time this year in a close and politically crucial race an election was certified without re-examining the paper ballots counted by op-scan, although in the end a mere 15 votes separated the two candidates. See the story <a href="http://www.dailynews.com/ny_local/2011/02/21/2011-02-21_oops_when_not_all_votes_really_count.html">here</a> and below:<br /><br /><div id="art_story"> <div class="clearfix" id="art_header_columnist"> <div id="art_columnist"> <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/authors/Celeste%20Katz"><br /></a> </div> <div id="art_info"> <h1>Dem Frank Skartados doomed by vague election law crafted by his own lawyer</h1> <p class="byline"><a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/authors/Celeste%20Katz">Celeste Katz</a> </p> <p class="datestamp"><span class="datestamp_update">Monday, February 21st 2011, 4:00 AM</span></p> </div> </div> <div class="art_img_lrg"> <img src="http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2011/02/21/alg_frank_skartados.jpg" alt="Frank Skartados was forced to concede the seat for the 100th Assembly District last week when he was a mere 15 votes behind." title="Frank Skartados was forced to concede the seat for the 100th Assembly District last week when he was a mere 15 votes behind." /> <div class="art_img_lrg_txt"> <div class="art_img_lrg_credit">Albany Times Union<br /><br /></div> <span>Frank Skartados was forced to concede the seat for the 100th Assembly District last week when he was a mere 15 votes behind.</span> </div> </div> <div class="art_sidebar"><br /></div> <p><a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Sheldon+Silver" title="Sheldon Silver">Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver</a>'s former adviser wrote the state law that may have cost him his powerful, veto-proof, Democratic supermajority.</p> <p>Democrat Frank Skartados was forced to concede the seat for the 100th Assembly District last week when he was a mere 15 votes behind.</p> <p>In his heart of hearts, he believes he won.</p> <p>But in a double whammy of irony, Skartados was seemingly doomed by a vague election law that was crafted by his own lawyer, <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Kathleen+O%27Keefe" title="Kathleen O'Keefe">Kathleen O'Keefe</a>, while she worked as Silver's chief election counsel. O'Keefe's strict interpretation of her own law walled off one of Skartados' last hopes of fighting for the seat.</p> <p>"I couldn't do anything with the way the law was written," said Skartados, who conceded to Republican <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Tom+Kirwan" title="Tom Kirwan">Tom Kirwan</a> after one of the most drawnout contests in state history. "But I feel that justice was not served because the voices of everyone were silenced by the courts."</p> <p>A <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Brooklyn+%28New+York+City%29" title="Brooklyn (New York City)">Brooklyn</a> appeals court ruled unanimously in favor of Kirwan when it tossed out about 60 contested affidavit ballots. That left Skartados just 15 votes behind. In <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/New+York+City" title="New York City">New York City</a>, Board of Elections rules automatically require a hand inspection of the paper trail from voting machines in any election where the margin is 0.5% or less.</p> <p>State election law doesn't - and in races as close as the one for this <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Hudson+Valley" title="Hudson Valley">Hudson Valley</a> seat, it could make all the difference. "<a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/New+York" title="New York">New York</a> law offers very little guidance as to when a full recount is required," elections law expert <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Jerry+Goldfeder" title="Jerry Goldfeder">Jerry Goldfeder</a> said. "The law needs to be clarified."</p> <p>It's Monday morning quarterbacking, but what if Team Skartados had chosen to do something it never did: push for the machines to be opened?</p> <p>Take this example:</p> <p>Mr. and Mrs. Public vote in a state Senate race. Mr. Public goes to the polls; Mrs. Public mails an absentee ballot. Being of like mind, they both choose Candidate Z. They also make the same error: Both circle Z's name instead of properly filling in the oval on the ballot.</p> <p>Mr. Public feeds his ballot into the voting machine, which scans the blank oval and counts it as an "undervote," or no vote in that race.</p> <p>Mrs. Public's absentee ballot is opened, and election officials - who are required to consider the voter's intent - mark down a vote for Z. Mrs. Public's vote is counted. But if the machines stay closed, Mr. Public's vote disappears.</p> <p>O'Keefe, reached yesterday, headed off any questions. "I have no comment, [and] I'd rather you didn't call me," she said before hanging up. Silver did not return a call.</p> <p>Even Kirwan's lawyer <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/James+Walsh" title="James Walsh">James Walsh</a> - though thrilled with his client's victory - said he would have interpreted the law differently if he'd been in O'Keefe's place in the 100-day-plus struggle.</p> <p>"If I were her, I would've [tried to] open up all the machines - especially [in] <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Dutchess+County" title="Dutchess County">Dutchess County</a>," with its higher concentration of registered Democrats.</p> <p>It's certainly true - and Skartados readily agrees - that if the machine paper were hand-counted, he still might have lost.</p> <p>We'll never know.</p> <p>"I don't feel any justice in this election," he said. "We've been taught in schools that every vote counts - and obviously, in this case, every vote did not."</p> <p><a href="mailto:ckatz@nydailynews.com">ckatz@nydailynews.com</a></p> </div><div style="overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;"><br />Read more: <a style="color: rgb(0, 51, 153);" href="http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/02/21/2011-02-21_oops_when_not_all_votes_really_count.html#ixzz1EidD6Sf7">http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/02/21/2011-02-21_oops_when_not_all_votes_really_count.html#ixzz1EidD6Sf7</a><br /></div>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-87007101849305945812011-01-23T16:48:00.002-05:002011-01-23T17:19:28.912-05:00OpEd News Interview With ETC's Joanne LukacherJoanne Lukacher, ETC advisory board director, discussed recent and ongoing developments in New York's experiences with computerized voting with Joan Brunwasser of OpEd News <a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Election-Transparency-Coal-by-Joan-Brunwasser-110119-679.html">here</a><a href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Election-Transparency-Coal-by-Joan-Brunwasser-110119-679.html">.</a>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-91664957125082653492011-01-12T02:15:00.008-05:002011-01-17T11:46:45.631-05:00Joanne Lukacher and Howard Stanislevic Interviewed on Activist Radio"We were...assured...by one of our State Election Commissioners that the paper ballot count would be the certified count -- not the machine count.<br /><br />"Now...a tightly contested election...has been certified, but the paper ballots were not the deciding factor."<br /> <br /> -- Joanne Lukacher -- Election Transparency Coalition<br /><br />On January 7th, ETC project director Joanne Lukacher and ETC adviser Howard Stanislevic of the <a href="http://e-voter.blogspot.com/">E-Voter Education Project</a> were the guests of WVKR radio hosts <a href="http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/frednagel">Fred Nagel</a> and Gary Kenton on their program: Activist Radio. Fred is an active peace and justice advocate and Gary served on the Dutchess County Voting Integrity Task Force which delivered the report leading to the Dutchess County legislature becoming the first county legislature in New York to pass a resolution in favor of retaining their lever voting machines. The conversation covered: Columbia County's 100% hand count; the request for a hand count of the NY Senate District 7 contest <u>denied</u> by the state's highest court; the ongoing Nassau County lawsuit against electronic vote counting; and more. A podcast of the discussion is <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/evoterproject/files/ActivistRadio-1-6-11.mp3">available here</a> as a free mp3 download.Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-15084926004514441082010-09-19T14:45:00.003-04:002010-09-19T16:49:05.602-04:00New York Primary Election Day: Op-Scan Round-upTuesday was primary election day in New York and the debut of optical scan voting machines in all New York counties. Reports from voters around the state were fairly consistent with my own experience in Poughkeepsie.<br /><br />Although there were only about 4 people in line it took me about 10 minutes to get my ballot. One minute to fill it out - not as easy to stay inside those ovals as when seated at a desk with a pencil in the 10th grade, but I had only two choices to indicate. The markers were micron felt-tip and already the point was wearing down although I'm sure there had been no more than 15 voters there so far. A report from an ETC friend in Suffolk County indicated that although she was the 39th voter in her district, the pen was almost out of ink.<br /><br />At my polling place only one of the two machines was working. I saw reams of machine tapes being pulled out and there was also some dispute as to whether each machine was dedicated exclusively to one of the two election districts accommodated by this polling place. When I inserted my ballot into the working op-scan I received an over-vote notice and chose to have the ballot returned rather then continuing since I knew I had not over-voted. I inserted the ballot again only to received a "one or more ambiguous marks" on the ballot notice and indeed there were very faint and very tiny smudges either from the privacy sleeve or the scanner itself. Voters in New York city apparently had the same problem, the result of the use of the felt-tip markers which were reported to be those recommended by the voting machine manufacturers.<br /><br />In Poughkeepsie I stood in line again for a new ballot and carefully filled in those minute ovals, although now the pen had a felt tail dragging behind. After 2 more attempts this new ballot with no evident "ambiguous" marks was again being rejected on the grounds of those invisible ambiguities. Throughout the state there were reports of machines rejecting ballots. In the time I was at my polling place at least one person had to feed his ballot at least twice before it registered. Finally the attendant at my machine suggested I turned the ballot over with the blank side up and, ta-dah, my vote was "cast" indicating I was the 22nd voter of the day.<br /><br />I know the scanners have the capability to read two sides but whether that feature was enabled today? Who knows? But then again, who knows anyway?<br /><br />With the high percentage of rejected ballots, I was concerned that the spoiled ballots were not being as carefully tracked as they should have been. Again, during the 25 minutes I was at my relatively quiet polling place another voter (an experienced poll worker) over-voted and had to stand in line for a new ballot. I later saw her hand in her spoilt ballot only after her second ballot had been cast. At one point in <a href="http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/all-onondaga_county_voting_sca.htm">one election district</a> in Syracuse there were 14 ballots spoiled for 20 which had been cast.Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-85271862834319825992010-09-03T03:03:00.006-04:002010-09-04T13:12:32.096-04:00Nassau County Argues for Lever Machines in US Court of AppealsOn Wednesday, Nassau County Attorney John Ciampoli asked a three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to overrule District Court Judge Gary Sharpe's order to replace lever voting machines with computers to run this year's federal elections in New York.<br /><br />Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs reportedly agreed with the county's assesment, saying that the new computerized ballot scanners were "more prone to fraud on a mass scale than a lever machine."<br /><br />Adam Klasfeld of <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/aboutus.html">Courthouse News Service</a> attended the hearing in lower Manhattan on Sept. 1 and filed <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/09/02/30069.htm">this report</a>.<br /><br />This is the highest court to hear a case on the use of lever voting machines in federal elections since the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (<a href="http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/hava/HAVA_2002.php">HAVA</a>), which made funds available to the states to replace lever machines and punch cards, was signed into law by President George W. Bush.<br /><br />Nassau County continues to break new ground, making the arguments that should have been made by New York State attorneys in <span style="font-style: italic;">US v. NYS Board of Elections</span> years ago. HAVA does <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">not</span> require the use of computers to count votes.Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-9815390874092312972010-07-27T08:20:00.003-04:002010-07-27T08:35:13.607-04:00NY Court Allows Optical Scan Inspection by Nassau's Experts<p>The state Supreme Court judge hearing <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/04/01/26056.htm" target="_blank">Nassau County’s case</a> against the NY State Board of Elections last week authorized Nassau County, as part of the discovery process, to have ES&S electronic vote-counting machines tested by an independent lab in Connecticut.</p> <p>In delivering this order the judge affirmed many of the constitutional issues which ETC has articulated, finding that, among other things, “the Legislature may not adopt policies which deprive voters of crucial protections under the New York State Constitution,” and “any burden on the State is far outweighed by the public’s interest in the right to cast a meaningful vote and its right to know whether the new machines jeopardize the security and integrity of New York’s electoral process.”</p> <p>Responding to the court ruling in a press statement, Nassau County Attorney John Ciampoli said, “It is my firm belief that these new voting machines adversely affect voters… in their ability to cast their votes and have them count. In addition, in my opinion, the new voting equipment is an invitation to high tech and low tech fraud. Finally these voting systems will explode the cost of running elections by a multiple of as much as ten times the cost of running an election on our reliable lever machines.”</p> <p>Nassau is among a minority of New York counties to have opted for the ES&S optical scan machines, one of two systems certified for use in NY by the State Board of Elections. The ruling only applies to the machines of the petitioning county (Nassau). This currently leaves the Dominion system, which was chosen by the majority of New York counties, exempt from independent testing.</p> <p>Most of the twenty counties that passed resolutions expressing concerns about the optical scan voting systems and petitioning to retain their lever machines are scheduled to use Dominion Optical Scanners in fall elections. ETC urges these counties to join the Nassau suit so that all the voting machines will be subjected to independent professional scrutiny.</p> <p>Nassau County Attorney John Ciampoli’s press statement and the full court ruling can be read here: <a href="http://nylevers.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/nassau-discovery-ruling-statement.pdf">Nassau Discovery Ruling & Statement</a>.</p>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-89740102450700214742010-07-24T13:39:00.002-04:002010-07-24T13:46:24.542-04:00Brennan Center Sues NYSBOE over Seasoning in Poisonous Brew<span style="font-style: italic;">Note: This article is re-posted from our sister site http://electiontransparencycoalition.org and is commentary on a development that occurred while the ETC blog editor was on vacation.<br /><br /></span><h3>Lawsuit Dishonors Justice Brennan’s Name</h3> <p>The Brennan Center For Justice has filed suit against the NY State and NYC Boards of Elections to prevent election officials from configuring newly purchased optical scan voting machines in a manner that would disfranchise large numbers of voters. The <a href="http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/naacp_new_york_state_conference_et_al._v._new_york_state_board_of_elec/" target="_blank">suit</a>, filed on behalf of NAACP, the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, the Working Families Party and other plaintiffs, seeks to compel election officials to use procedures to prevent votes from being disqualified when a voter selects too many candidates in a particular race, known as “overvoting.”</p> <p>Of course it is important to require procedures to prevent overvoting, but The Election Transparency Coalition (ETC) has repeatedly insisted that <em>all </em>protective procedures New York has enjoyed for centuries be maintained, including the opportunity for meaningful public oversight of our elections. <strong>The Brennan Center’s lawsuit, by focusing on a single protection, fails to address the much more significant problem: the State’s insistence that counties deploy concealed fraud-enabling vote-counting technology in the first place!<br /></strong><br />ETC maintains that the Brennan Center suit is akin to fretting over the seasoning in a poisonous brew. If the Brennan Center’s case succeeds, overvoting may be less likely to occur, but votes can still be nullified by the concealed vote counting system the Brennan Center supports!</p> <p>While correctly pointing out that lever voting machines make overvoting <em>impossible</em>, the Brennan Center’s case fails to mention that <strong>lever machines also cannot be secretly programmed or “hacked” to switch and miscount votes without detection — which is eminently possible with optical scanners.</strong></p> <p>As ETC has been saying for years, electronic optical scan vote counting systems are vulnerable to tampering and malfunction that is completely undetectable. The way in which such voting machines were programmed to count, as well as how they in fact counted, is hidden, violating centuries of New York State election law mandating public oversight and accountability. That’s why we have been working so hard to bring our own lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of NY’s Election Reform and Modernization Act (ERMA), which is forcing NY’s counties to replace their existing secure, transparent HAVA-compliant voting systems.</p> <p>Nassau County has filed a <a href="http://electiontransparencycoalition.org/2010/06/21/465/" target="_self">lawsuit</a> in State Supreme Court similar to ETC’s upcoming suit and a federal judge has ruled that federal law does not require replacement of lever voting machines. Yet the Brennan Center’s case continues to promote the widely held misconception that the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) mandates replacement of NY’s trusted lever machines. The State of NY had also made this erroneous claim and argued that Nassau’s case must be tried in Federal Court. But last month, Federal Court Judge Joseph Bianco rejected the State’s arguments and remanded Nassau County’s suit back to State Court. As Nassau had argued, New York has been in compliance with HAVA since 2008, when the State augmented the lever voting system with ballot marking devices at every polling place to increase accessibility for voters with special needs.</p> <p>The late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan understood the imperative for public scrutiny of government processes, repeatedly finding the public’s right to witness and safeguard its interest to be constitutionally protected.</p> <p>The Brennan Center <a href="http://www.brennancenter.org/content/pages/justice_brennan_quotations#constitution" target="_blank">website</a> quotes Justice Brennan as saying, “. . . the Constitution will endure as a vital charter of human liberty as long as there are those with the courage to defend it, the vision to interpret it, and the fidelity to live by it.”</p> <p>The Election Transparency Coalition calls upon the Brennan Center to honor its namesake by challenging the dangers posed to our democracy by concealed vote-counting systems. ERMA must be declared unconstitutional so that transparency and citizen oversight can be returned to our elections and we can perform our duties as citizens to ensure that every vote will be counted correctly.</p>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-61823418683603886292010-06-23T13:42:00.009-04:002010-06-23T16:40:09.092-04:00Nassau Election Commisssion Lawsuit Sent back to State CourtWe’re pleased with U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Bianco’s ruling last week sending Nassau County’s case back to state court where it belongs.<br /><br />The case, filed in March, seeks to have NY’s Election Reform and Modernization Act (ERMA) declared unconstitutional for many of the same reasons ETC’s upcoming litigation does: chiefly, the disaster that would be caused for our democracy should the electronic vote-counting systems ordered by ERMA be deployed throughout New York. Defendants had the case moved to federal court, claiming that federal issues were involved.<br /><br />But Judge Bianco disagreed, saying “Plaintiffs’ claims (1) do not assert a federal cause of action, (2) necessarily raise a substantial question of federal law, or (3) come within the “artful pleading doctrine.” As such, there is no federal jurisdiction over this case, and remand is required.”<br /><br />The State has repeatedly claimed that federal law, the Orwellian-named Help America Vote Act, forbids continued use of lever voting machines. However, in his ruling, Judge Bianco affirmed what Nassau (and ETC) have been saying: that HAVA does not rule out the use of lever voting machines.<br /><br />Bianco’s ruling also states, “In short, there is no indication Congress sought to transform all state law claims dealing with the administration of elections or voting systems into federal claims. In fact, the opposite appears to be true given that Congress gave the states a significant amount of discretion as to how to implement HAVA.”<br /><br />Judge Bianco’s ruling thus correlates with what ETC has said all along: that HAVA does not require that NY abandon its lever voting systems. NY came into compliance with HAVA when ballot marking devices were installed at every polling place to provide increased access for voters with special needs. The full ruling can be viewed<a href="http://nylevers.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/nc_v_nysboe_remand_decision.pdf"> </a><a href="http://nylevers.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/nc_v_nysboe_remand_decision.pdf">here</a>.Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-33769991131946605492010-03-26T18:34:00.002-04:002010-03-26T20:40:51.128-04:00Nassau County Files Suit Against NYS Over ERMAThe Election Transparency Coalition applauds Nassau County for filing suit against the State of New York over its unconstitutional election law, the Election Reform and Modernization Act (ERMA).<br /><br />ETC has long held that ERMA is unconstitutional because its mandate that counties switch over from the time-tested, trustworthy and transparent lever voting systems to electronic vote-counting systems will end meaningful public oversight of the public’s elections. That mandate must not be allowed to stand.<br /><br />Since New York State has already complied with the federal requirement of at least one accessible voting device for voters with special needs at each poll site, we urge the Court to act quickly and decisively to halt the implementation of the state’s legislation before more taxpayer dollars are spent on equipment that must not be used to count votes in New York.Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-60656755484846086122010-03-02T15:40:00.008-05:002010-03-04T12:19:36.935-05:00Columbia County Joins With Nassau to Contest ERMA: Counties Want to Keep Their Lever Voting MachinesFrom the Columbia County <a href="http://www.registerstar.com/articles/2010/03/02/news/doc4b8c89f540e51388817827.prt">Register Star</a>:<br /> <h5>By Francesca Olsen</h5> <div class="timestamp" style="margin: 0px 0px 15px;">Published: <div class="timestamp">Tuesday, March 2, 2010 2:12 AM EST</div></div> <div id="storytext"><span>The Columbia County Board of Elections will join in a lawsuit with Nassau County, and other New York counties, to declare ERMA, the state Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005, unconstitutional.<br /><br />BOE Commissioners Virginia Martin (D) and Jason Nastke (R) have updated the Board of Supervisors’ County Government Committee on the impending litigation.<br /><br />At February’s meeting, Nastke told the committee that the County Attorney’s Office has reviewed the lawsuit paperwork, and is on board with the idea, provided the BOE get “something in writing” from Nassau that there will be no financial or legal implications from joining the suit.<br /><br />Under ERMA, traditional lever voting machines would be prohibited from use, and municipalities would have to replace them with computerized voting machines, either touch-screen or optical scanners. But ERMA doesn’t fund the replacement, meaning Columbia, and other New York counties, would need to foot the bill for the transition.<br /><br />“My fundamental issue with this, aside from the reliability issue with the new machines, is essentially, the unfunded mandate costs being carried over to the county,” Nastke told the Register-Star. “Albany wants to talk a great deal about how we should save money, but then sends down mandates that will cost Columbia County alone $100,000 per election. It’s just wrong.”<br /><br />“What’s not extricable from the cost issue is the complexity issue,” Martin added. “When things become more complex they become more costly to maintain or implement. There’s much more to do.”<br /><br />For example, if elections do end up moving over completely to paper ballots, storing the ballots, printed for each registered voter, would require “Fort Knox” style security measures, including double locks and environmental controls. Machines would also need increased security.<br /><br />Martin said that paper ballots used in elections now require the same kind of storage “but they comprise a very small portion of the votes that get cast. If we make the change to an election that’s fully voted on paper ballots, then we’re looking at a much greater storage space needed.”<br /><br />“You have to print paper ballots for every voter, regardless of whether the voter shows up,” Nastke said. “What if there’s a last minute change on the ballot? Do we have to go out and reprint ballots?”<br /><br />The Federal Help America Vote Act of 2002, which inspired ERMA and requires municipalities to make voting accessible to everyone regardless of disability, does not require that lever machines be fully replaced, and provides funding to municipalities for the purchase of new machines.<br /><br />In 2008, Columbia County complied with HAVA by purchasing 52 Sequoia Imagecast optical scan and ballot marking devices for $600,000, 95 percent of which was covered by HAVA funding. The county paid $28,000.<br /><br />Martin said that while new machines probably wouldn’t need to be purchased, the cost would still be high.<br /><br />“It’s not a matter of buying more machines. It’s a matter of implementing it all, which is far more complex than a lever machine election,” she said.<br /><br />There have also been deep concerns across the state as to whether optical scanners are as reliable as lever machines. They are computerized, and doubts about the security and accuracy of programs have been raised repeatedly. Also concerning to many is that the computerized language of ones and zeroes can’t be easily understood at a local level by election custodians who may not be familiar with computer programming.<br /><br />Resistance to the switch is ongoing. In February of last year, the New York State Association of Towns passed a resolution stating that “the continued use of lever voting machines is in the best interest of the public and should be permitted to be used in future general elections ... the elimination of lever voting machines is costly to taxpayers, will result in another burden upon the local taxpayers, and will be confusing to the voting public without adequate time and education.”<br /><br />And the Election Transparency Coalition, headed by Attorney Andrea Novick, has been requesting help and resources to litigate against ERMA. ETC’s Web site, <a href="http://www.electiontransparencycoalition.org/">www.electiontransparencycoalition.org</a>, declares pointedly that “ERMA is unconstitutional.”<br /><br />“HAVA said we had to make voting handicapped-accessible to everybody,” Nastke said. “We’ve done that. The state of New York said, we want everyone to use these new machines. There’s nothing wrong with our old machines. They work fine. You know whether or not the votes were counted ... they don’t go into some hidden software chip somewhere.”<br /><br />Followers of current events may already know that the Nassau County Attorney is John Ciampoli, the same attorney who litigated for the Columbia County Republican Party in a suit over the validity of absentee ballots from last November’s election.<br /><br />Which means Martin and Ciampoli, who is involved in the litigation to declare ERMA unconstitutional, will be on the same side of the argument this time around.<br /><br />“It seems that we do agree on this,” she said. “It’s good that Nassau is doing this, or is preparing to do this.”<br /><br />Other counties in New York, Martin said, are looking into joining the litigation as well.<br /><br />Ciampoli said that the BOE commissioners in Nassau County are calling other commissioners in other counties to generate interest in joining the lawsuit, and that so far, there have been talks with New York City, Westchester, Suffolk, and “several other counties.”<br /><br />He added that paperwork has not been officially filed yet, but interviews with people to serve as expert witnesses are being conducted, an expert has already been retained, and reviews are being conducted with the attorney’s office and Board of Elections.<br /><br />To reach reporter Francesca Olsen call 518-828-1616, ext. 2272, or e-mail <a href="mailto:folsen@registerstar.com">folsen@registerstar.com</a>.</span><br /> </div>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-76859170708337210662010-02-15T09:19:00.007-05:002010-02-16T00:24:00.455-05:00"Auditing" Regs Confirm Op-Scan VulnerabilitiesI need to reiterate: the crux of ETC's opposition to software-based voting systems, which include the Op-Scans, is that they institutionalize secret vote counting, violating our constitutional right to <span style="font-weight: bold;">see</span> that our votes are counted as cast.<br /><br />Recognizing the inferiority and vulnerability of the op-scans the NYS Legislature in enacting ERMA included the requirement for an "audit", a post-election night recount of a percentage of supposedly randomly chosen paper ballots which the public was to believe was a check on the accuracy of the optical scanner counting. (Of course post-election night ballot recounts are illegal in New York, a fact that seems to be irrelevant to our officials.) But the so-called "auditing" procedures which have been developed by the state board of elections are themselves an indictment of the very proposition that software-based voting systems are an accurate and secure way to run an election.<br /><br />The <a href="http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxyZW1lZGlhZXRjfGd4OjEzN2RmOTdiZjZmNjllYTQ">audit procedures</a> are worth reading in full. But I have highlighted here what, if we could all still laugh about this, would be some of the more comical instances of doublespeak and oxymoron:<br /><br /><br />"Ballot Marks<br />o Valid votes that have been marked by the voter outside the vote targets or using a marking device that cannot be read by the vote tally system shall not be included in making the determination whether the voting system has met the standard of acceptable performance. "<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">What does this mean? Did the machine count the vote or not? </span><br /><br />"Scanners will easily recognize votes that are marked with a density that is within the calibrated thresholds. In an audit, the human eye may perceive these marks differently that the scanner, however the audit team members and observers alike should understand that the scanners, in accordance with Section 7-201.1e provide each voter with a notification of any mark the system perceives as questionable and provides each voter with the opportunity to remark their ballot or cast it 'as-is'. "<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">In an audit the eye may perceive the mark differently? How did the voter who made the mark perceive it? Did the machine override voter intent? Silly voter. </span><br /><br />"The problems in Cuyahoga County, Ohio in 2004, where audit supervisors rigged the ballot selection so that no discrepancies would be found, exemplify the danger of auditors hoping to find perfect matches and to avoid the difficult questions and additional work that might result if the records do not match."<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">i.e. Beware of fraud. Two Cuyahoga County election workers were convicted for the illegal manipulation of ballots during the 2004 recount. </span><br /><br />"To counter the understandable temptation to make the paper and electronic records match..."<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Understandable, especially if you are trying to cover-up machine rigging or because underfunded, understaffed elections boards will often cut corners . Who could have imagined....And what is the counter to that?</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">More expensive, finicky, non-transparent, easily compromised machines?</span><br /><br />Manual counts may sometimes reveal different voter intent than machine counts of ballots. Overvotes, marginal marks, hesitation marks, and other stray markings on manually marked ballots could cause optical scan voting machines to misinterpret voter intent that a human reviewer would be able to discern."<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> ... and if we make enough exceptions to cover discrepancies between hand and machine counts, then almost any machine, even rigged ones, will pass "audit."<br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: right;">- JL<br /></div><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /></span><div style="text-align: right;"><br /></div>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-33377913914527172722010-02-14T23:51:00.002-05:002010-02-15T00:01:59.024-05:00Happy Valentines Day Lever MachinesMechanical Lever Voting Machines were first used in Lockport, New York in 1892. Four years later Rochester became the first large city to adopt the machines and the entire state soon followed.<br /><br />On February 14th, 1899 voting machines were approved by Congress for use in federal elections.<br /><br />Anniversary information courtesy of <a href="http://sowingculture.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/voting-machines/">Sowing Culture</a> the Blog of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS.) Photograph Courtesy of Connecticut History Online.<br /><br /><div id="attachment_1265" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 509px;"><a href="http://images.lib.uconn.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/cho&CISOPTR=1726"><img src="http://sowingculture.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/voting-machine-1912.jpg?w=499&h=453" alt="" title="voting machine 1912" class="size-full wp-image-1265" height="453" width="499" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Voting machine, Hartford (CT, 1912)</p></div>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-55803893159703334922010-02-10T12:50:00.005-05:002010-02-10T15:15:04.939-05:00All Things Considered: Electronic Voting Costs Dollars and Democracy<p>So far the New York Board of Elections has not shown it can learn from the experiences of others that software-based voting not only creates unpredictable short and long term costs but endangers Democracy. The following report is from NPR Affiliate KXJZ in Sacrament0 and was aired on <span style="font-style: italic;">All Things Considered</span> on February 8th and the following day on <span style="font-style: italic;">Morning Edition</span>.<br /></p><p>Thanks to votingnews.blogspot.com for the link.<em></em><em></em><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p> (Sacramento, CA) </p><div>California elections officials say their computerized voting booths are in need of upgrades, but they can’t afford to make big improvements.<br /></div> <div>Capital Public Radio's Steve Shadley reports...</div> <div>*******************************************************************************</div> <div>Two statewide elections are coming up later this year but local elections officials say they’re working with outdated electronic voting booths.<br /><br />Private companies that sell the equipment say the state and counties would be better off buying new systems rather than trying to modernize the old equipment.<br /><br />That would require millions of dollars that governments don’t have right now.</div> <div><br />At a public hearing on the issue in Sacramento, some citizens urged the officials to get rid of electronic voting, period.<br /><br />Tom Courbat is with the Riverside County group “Save Our Vote”...</div> <div> </div> <div><b>Courbat: </b>“We’re not convinced there is enough security in these voting systems to justify continuing to purchase them. We have seen demonstrations over and over again of machines being hacked...”</div> <div> </div> <div>Courbat says it would be more secure if voters cast paper ballots that would be counted by hand.<span> <br /><br />But advocates for the disabled say not everyone can fill out a paper ballot.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Note: Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs) are one means by which special needs voters can create a ballot independently . BMDs are provided at every polling place in New York State. These BMDs are separate from the Optical Scan Voting Machines and the ballots created can be counted by hand. The issues should not be confused as they often are, including in the above report. </span><br /></span></div>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-87008951053519550052010-02-01T10:29:00.005-05:002010-02-01T12:29:50.086-05:00County Government Committee of Columbia County Supports Joining LitigationAfter a January 26th report on the state's required switch to optical scanners, presented by Columbia County Election Commissioners Virginia Martin and Jason Nastke, Supervisors on the Columbia County Government Committee agreed that the county should support litigation to have ERMA declared unconstitutional.<br /><br />As <a href="http://www.registerstar.com/articles/2010/01/31/news/doc4b64e648235f5128304327.txt">reported</a> by Francesca Olsen of the Register-Star:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><br /><ul><li>Democratic Commissioner of Elections Virginia Martin and Republican Commissioner Jason Nastke presented documentation on the State’s required impending switch to optical scanners and ballot marking devices at the January County Government Committee meeting Jan. 26.<br /><br />Martin said that several counties, including Nassau County in Long Island, are interested in joining proposed litigation to declare the state Election Reform and Modernization Act of 2005 (ERMA) unconstitutional. Supervisors on the committee were in general agreement that Columbia County’s involvement in the litigation was the right move.<br /><br />All counties in New York are expected to use optical scanners for the 2010 primary and general elections. Nastke told the committee that just to print the paper ballots from BMDs — ballot marking devices — and optical scanners, it would cost the county $100,000 per year. “The county could put that towards a bridge!” he said. “There’s nothing for us to lose by joining in this lawsuit.”<br /><br />“Election administration gets a lot more complicated, and there are a lot more opportunities for errors,” Martin told the committee about the switch from lever machines to BMDs and optical scanners. For example, the paper ballots the new machines use (and the machines themselves) can take up a lot of space, and must be stored securely year-round with “fort-knox style security, bipartisan locks, environmental controls,” according to materials handed out by Martin at the committee meeting.<br /><br />It was suggested that if the lawsuit just delays the implementation of ERMA, it would save taxpayers the cost of new machine implementation for a little longer. “I’m not too thrilled with these scanning systems,” Nastke said, “but I’m required by law to implement them.”<br /><br /> <span>Optical scanners were certified by the State Board of Elections in December, and ERMA would require the discontinuing of lever machines. “There’s a difference with what the federal government asked, and what the state wants us to do,” said Supervisor Leo Pulcher, R-Stockport.<br /><br />The Help America Vote Act of 2002 does not require states to replace their lever voting machines.</span></li></ul></span>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-85777359920677007582010-01-28T13:41:00.005-05:002010-02-01T13:09:01.916-05:00Levers Can Be Used in March Village Elections[Additional material was added to this post on 1 February]<br /><br />The NY State Board of Elections (SBoE)has decided that villages may continue to use the lever voting machines in the March 2010 elections. According to a <a href="http://www.poststar.com/news/local/article_12efcf22-0acb-11df-ab78-001cc4c03286.html">report</a> in the Post Star "state Board of Elections spokesman John Conklin said officials concluded that counties that haven't participated in a pilot program for the new machines can have an extended grace period."<br /><br />What is unclear is whether villages in counties that participated in a limited way in the November pilot, like Dutchess, which deployed an op-scan in one voting district in the city of Poughkeepsie, will be required to use the scanners in March.<br /><br />The SBoE decision was in response to concerns like those in a January 4th memo filed by election officials in Washington County, which did not participate in the pilot, that "The training that we need for ourselves, the inspectors and the technicians is not going to be completed in time for your use." But the other anxiety expressed by the Washington county election commissioners is one which has been systematically ignored by the SBoE despite having been raised consistently by county officials across the state. The Washington Commissioners wrote, "Also a concern is the cost of programming the new machines, transporting them and the printing of the ballots that may be prohibitive to small villages."<br /><br />Update:<br /><br />Although electronic voting machines were used in the November 2009 elections, the village of Saranac Lake has asked permission to use lever machines in the March village elections. Village clerk Kareen Tyler said, "I just don't think the expense or availability of the (new) machines is something the village is going to be able to handle." If permission to use the levers is not granted Tyler said the village will go to paper ballots which will be counted by hand. "It would not be difficult to do at all," she said. "There would be rules and guidelines and safeguards so they couldn't be stuffed or anything like that."<br /><br />The story is<a href="http://adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/511045.html?nav=5008"> reported</a> in the Adirondack Daily Enterprise.Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-1554999826971930252009-12-16T14:39:00.004-05:002009-12-16T20:04:10.077-05:00Ballot Scanners Switched Votes/New York SBoE Certifies Ballot ScannersRepresentatives of ETC attended the State Board of Elections Meeting yesterday where optical scan voting machines made by Dominion (Sequoia) and ES&S were certified for use in New York elections to replace the lever voting machines. We will post further about this meeting late in the day. In the meanwhile please read this <a href="http://e-voter.blogspot.com/2009/12/end-of-innocence-ny-state-board-of_14.html">important post</a> from Howard Stanislevic at the <a href="http://e-voter.blogspot.com/">E-Voter Education Project</a> concerning the implications of vote-switching incidents in the New York state op-scan pilot programs during the November elections.Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-72880445065445960422009-12-11T11:40:00.005-05:002009-12-11T12:01:23.988-05:00Officials Were Warned<span style="font-style: italic;">Brad Friedman of <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/">bradblog.com </a> runs down the run-up to and aftermath of the New York State Op-Scan pilot program and the November '09 elections. Reprinted from <a href="http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/local-news-stories/60-st-lawrence-news/9058-officials-were-warned.html">The Gouverneur Times</a>.<br /><br /></span><a class="addthis_button"> </a> <table class="contentpaneopen"> <tbody><tr> <td class="contentheading" width="100%"> <a href="http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/local-news-stories/60-st-lawrence-news/9058-officials-were-warned.html" class="contentpagetitle"> Officials Were Warned</a> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="contentpaneopen"> <tbody><tr> <td> <span> <a href="http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/local-news-stories/60-st-lawrence-news.html"> Northern NY News </a> </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"> <span class="small"> Written by Brad Friedman </span> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="createdate" valign="top"> Friday, 11 December 2009 07:09 </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"> <p>Following the recent November election, the Operation Director for New York's State Board of Elections, Anna E. Svizerro declared the experiment of testing new, uncertified voting systems on live voters in a real election to be "very successful." <a href="http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091113/BLOGS09/911139995/-1/BLOGS09"><em>The Watertown Daily Times</em> reported</a> Svizerro's comments, nearly verbatim and wholly uncritically, on Nov. 13th, despite serious concerns that had already emerged about the equipment used in the NY-23 Special Election for the U.S. House, and the errors discovered in its reported results.<br /> </p><p>Many of those problems, machine failure, inaccurate results, and the difficulty or impossibility of verifying them as accurate following the election, have been reported on in aggressive detail <a href="http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8606:continuing-coverage-of-the-problems-in-ny-23s-2009-election&catid=60&Itemid=175">by <em>The Gouverneur Times</em></a> over the last several weeks.</p> <p>But concerns about the dangers and pitfalls of New York's pilot program were voiced long before the questionable election of November 3rd. State officials were warned about those dangers via a virtual blizzard of letters sent to them over the past year by state and national election integrity organizations and advocates recommending modifications to the pilot program to ensure voters would not be disenfranchised. Indeed, many of the very same groups who have supported the state's move from mechanical lever systems to computerized secret vote counting were nonetheless extremely critical of the way in which voters were to be used "as guinea pigs" to test uncertified hardware and software in both the primary and general elections this year as part of the pilot program.</p> <p>The concerns of the election advocates now seem to have been quite prescient, even as they appear to have been largely ignored by state and federal officials.</p> <p>As early as April 2009, the League of Women Voters of New York State (LWVNYS) - who describe themselves as "a multi-issue, nonpartisan political organization which... has been a supporter of... the replacement of lever voting machines in New York" - had sent <a href="http://www.lwvny.org/advocacy/legAction/USDeptJust0409.pdf">a letter [PDF]</a> to both federal attorneys and state election officials urging them to reconsider their proposed pilot program to test machines in this year's elections.</p> <p>The letter from LWVNYS President Martha Kennedy to Brian F. Heffernan in the U.S. Attorney's office, and CC'd to six different New York State Board of Elections officials, found "merit" in a pilot deployment of the state's new Sequoia/Dominion optical-scan voting systems, but disagreed with the way they were to be prematurely forced upon voters during real elections.</p> <p>"We cannot support pilot projects using uncertified machines throughout the state," Kennedy wrote, "unless it were coupled with a mandated 100% hand count of the paper ballots which would become the official count." No such mandate was instituted and, instead, uncertified results tainted by the failing and flawed secret vote counting computers were used to install Democratic Party candidate Bill Owens to the U.S. House of Representatives shortly thereafter.</p> <p>Kennedy also expressed her concern about the "disenfranchisement of many voters because proper and complete testing of equipment and adequate training of election workers would not be possible within an abbreviated time frame."</p> <p>Two months later, in June, the LWVNYS was joined by the election integrity group New Yorkers for Verified Voting (NYVV) and the public advocacy organization New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) to issue a <a href="http://www.nyvv.org/newdoc/PressRelease060309-CEMAC.pdf">press release [PDF]</a> about the groups' joint concerns about the pilot project. The release highlighted <a href="http://www.nyvv.org/newdoc/LipariCEMACPilotComments.pdf">a report [PDF]</a> from NYVV's Bo Lipari who represented the League on the state's Citizen Election Modernization Advisory Committee.</p> <p>Lipari, as quoted from his report in the press release, warned the pilot program, as then planned, "gives insufficient regard to the scale of the project, the need for independent verification of results, the potential for problems arising, or a plan for how to learn from and apply the result.</p> <p>In the press release, Aimee Allaud, Election Specialist with the League also slammed the state's proposed pilot for "using real voters as guinea pigs in the upcoming elections."</p> <p>"Elections should be transparent, secure and inspire public confidence," NYPIRG's Neal Rosenstein also chided in the release. "Unfortunately, the Board's plan to have over 900,000 voters use new uncertified voting systems this year without requiring meaningful audits of results undermines the credibility of the election and sets a dangerous precedent for the future."</p> <p>Days later, the three groups were joined by still more election integrity experts and advocacy groups sharing their concerns with the State Board of Elections.</p> <p>On June 10, representatives from LWVNYS, NYVV and NYPIRG, along with representatives from the Catskill Center for Independence, Citizens' Union, E-Voter Education Project and the Task Force on Election Integrity sent an "urgent" plea to state officials to amend the pilot program.</p> <p>In their letter <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/CoalitionLetterToSBOErePilots-061109-1.pdf">"Re: Urgent steps toward election integrity with the 2009 Pilot Program," [PDF]</a> the groups decried the state's "Failure to modify the current plans for the pilot use of uncertified scanners," and noted - correctly, as it turns out, given the uproar following voting equipment failure on Election Day - that it "could lead to a decrease in the public's confidence in the results.</p> <p>The six organizations - several of which were in opposition to each other on the point of using computerized optical-scanners at all, some preferring the state's continued use of what they regard as more transparent mechanical lever systems - came together to urge the state "to fill these gaping holes in your plan to deploy uncertified ballot scanners," and asked again that they follow the recommendations of Lipari, a retired software engineer and a longtime advocate for the state's new op-scan voting system.</p> <p>"We believe these corrections of inadequacies in the planned program are essential and quite realistic," they wrote. They urged, among other recommendations, that the state ask counties to "limit deployment of the new machines to 10% of registered voters, even if they earlier agreed to do a full county wide implementation."</p> <p>That recommendation would not be heeded, and their letter would go unanswered by officials.</p> <p>In July, after failing to receive a response from either federal or state officials over the previous month, LWVNYS and NYVV tried again, following up their June 3 letter with an <a href="http://www.nyvv.org/newdoc/2009/LWV-NYVV-OpenLetter070909.pdf">"Open Letter to the New York State Board of Elections" [PDF]</a> about the "serious weaknesses of your published 'Pilot Plan' for the deployment of uncertified scanners in the primary and general elections of 2009."</p> <p>In the wake of a resolution adopted by the Board during their June meeting, the organizations excoriated what seemed to be a "direct repudiation" of their earlier request that the state allow counties to reduce their participation in the pilot program to just 10% of registered voters, as Lipari and the others had called for during the previous month.</p> <p>"You thus ignored the fact that experts recommend a 10% limit on the size of deployments of new technical equipment, even when nothing as important as votes are involved," they wrote.</p> <p>While they lauded the Board for taking steps to lay out procedures for the post-election "audits" of results, as they had also recommended, they were highly critical at the Board's failure to revise those protocols "in the direction recommended by experts so that New York would have statistically meaningful risk-limiting audits."</p> <p>The following week Common Cause of New York, Yad HaChazakah - The Jewish Disability Empowerment Center, Inc. and national election integrity watchdog <a href="http://votersunite.org/">VotersUnite.org</a> would join with several of the other groups to send yet another joint letter to federal officials at the U.S. Attorneys office as well as to state elections officials, trying yet again, ultimately in vain, to see changes made to the ill-fated pilot program - ("ill-fated", at least as many voters undoubtedly saw it, if not officials such as Svizerro who would, implausibly, declare it a success) - even as the primary and general election drew near. </p> <p>In their <a href="http://3263789183055837079-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/evoterproject/files/PilotLetterToDoJ%26AG.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7crlzLB3RXgO_JRZkZ5dPbdleEOZCuwcqw4BMOgi2nGPTDZ3YNanOmh-lvcX4_vBHbZ9tfrRJn691X3kYnHoIP1HXaN76l-KT45HNWpFKaF_K-XYhO7">four page letter [PDF]</a> on July 15, detailing ten recommendations "to correct inadequacies in the planned pilot program and to ensure compliance with New York's Election Laws as well as the [federal] Help America Vote Act," they echoed unanswered concerns originally expressed by the NY State League of Women Voters three months earlier, back in April.</p> <p>"The New York State Board of Elections is now planning a pilot of uncertified optical scan voting systems to be used by up to 1.4 million voters in 46 counties in the upcoming 2009 Primary and General elections," they wrote. "These new systems have not yet been used in real elections anywhere in the country, and still have not completed either New York State or Federal EAC [Election Assistance Commission] certification tests."</p> <p>"Therefore, voters who use these systems cannot be assured that their votes will be counted as cast. We believe the failure to make meaningful changes to the pilot will raise serious questions about the results of these elections," they said, before detailing their recommendations "incorporating the work of Bo Lipari" and averring that "implementation of the... proposals will greatly reduce the possibility of voter disenfranchisement raised by the planned pilot program and by the use of scanners in future elections."</p> <p>Virtually all of those repeated warnings, from all of those often disparate groups, sent across several months, seem to have fallen on deaf ears, before voters were both disenfranchised and have likely come to lose confidence in results in the wake of the various failures in the pilot program voting system, many of which have been reported by this news outlet, and others, in the wake of the election.</p> <p>So why didn't election officials heed the dire, repeated and often "urgent" warnings of both local and national election experts? At this point, we don't know. Calls and emails seeking comment from the New York State Board of Elections co-chairs Douglas Kellner and James Walsh, as well as to Jeffrey Dvorin in the office of the Asst. Attorney General in Albany, NY have so far gone unreturned.</p> <hr /> <p><em> </em></p> <p><em>Additional research by The Gouverneur Times' Nathan Barker and Howard Stanislevic of the <a href="http://e-voter.blogspot.com/">E-Voter Education Project</a>.</em></p> <p><em>Brad Friedman is an investigative reporter, blogger, election integrity advocate and expert, and the creator and publisher of <a href="http://www.bradblog.com/">The BRAD BLOG</a>. He is a broadcaster and contributor to the UK's </em>Guardian<em>, Huffington Post, </em>Computer World<em> and other periodicals, a Fellow at the Commonwealth Institute, and a frequent guest on radio and television outlets from Air America to Fox News. In addition to offering expert testimony on these matters to a number of federal and state electoral oversight commissions, he recently contributed a chapter on the disaster for voters that was the 2008 Election for the book </em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/158322890X?ie=UTF8&tag=tbb-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=158322890X">Censored 2010: The Top 25 Censored Stories of 2008-2009</a><em> and co-wrote an investigate report on the illegally certified Sequoia touch-screen voting machines, still in use in Nevada, for Mark Crispin Miller's book, </em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0978843142?ie=UTF8&tag=tbb-20&link_code=as3&camp=211189&creative=373489&creativeASIN=0978843142">Loser Take All: Election Fraud and The Subversion of Democracy, 2000 - 2008</a><em>. This year his work on the mysterious death of Republican IT guru Mike Connell was cited with an award for "Excellence in Investigative Journalism" by Sonoma State University's 33-year old "Project Censored" organization</em></p></td></tr></tbody></table>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-15948865113726514542009-11-30T17:51:00.007-05:002009-11-30T20:15:17.079-05:00State Moving Toward Certification of Concealed Vote-Counting Systems Even As Reports of Failures in November's Election Mount<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:documentproperties> <o:template>Normal</o:Template> <o:revision>0</o:Revision> <o:totaltime>0</o:TotalTime> <o:pages>1</o:Pages> <o:words>451</o:Words> <o:characters>2576</o:Characters> <o:company>Joanne Lukacher</o:Company> <o:lines>21</o:Lines> <o:paragraphs>5</o:Paragraphs> <o:characterswithspaces>3163</o:CharactersWithSpaces> <o:version>11.1282</o:Version> </o:DocumentProperties> <o:officedocumentsettings> <o:allowpng/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:donotshowrevisions/> <w:donotprintrevisions/> <w:displayhorizontaldrawinggridevery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery> <w:displayverticaldrawinggridevery>0</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery> <w:usemarginsfordrawinggridorigin/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> <style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Times New Roman"; panose-1:0 2 2 6 3 5 4 5 2 3; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:50331648 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:Arial; panose-1:0 2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:50331648 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:Verdana; panose-1:0 2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:50331648 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> <!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >The State Board of Elections is scheduled to certify several optical-scan electronic voting systems at their <a href="http://www.elections.state.ny.us/">meeting</a> in Albany on December 15. Yet as that day approaches, serious problems with the use of these systems in the November 3 election are emerging.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" ><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" ><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >Most glaring so far are irregularities in the NY-23 special congressional election. NY-23 happens to be the home of Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D., nationally renowned election fraud investigator. His rapid investigation into the November 3 election reveals election results Phillips says are "impossible," including more votes than voters, negative totals, and the like. His early findings are published in two online articles, "<a href="http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8425:impossible-numbers-certified-in-ny-23&catid=60:st-lawrence-news&Itemid=175">Impossible Numbers in NY-23</a>," and "<a href="http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8461:first-the-impossible-now-the-improbable-in-ny-23&catid=60:st-lawrence-news&Itemid=175">First the Impossible, Now the Improbable in NY-23</a>."<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" ><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:85%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >"<span style="color:black;">Given the mess in CD-23, certification of the scanners at this point would be a travesty," testified Ulster Park's Susan Holland at the Monday hearing before the State Senate Standing Committee on Elections in Albany.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" ><span style="color:black;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:black;" ><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;color:black;" >At least one election official, Dem-EC Virginia Martin of Columbia County, has <a href="http://re-mediaetc.blogspot.com/2009/10/ny-election-official-would-refuse-to.html">testified</a> that she would refuse to certify an election where she could not verify the count. With optical scan voting systems, vote counting takes place inside a computer where it cannot be seen by observers, candidates, or election officials.<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" ><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" ><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:85%;" >"Voters may never again see a lever voting machine in a NY polling place, but that's not the biggest thing that would be missing from our elections," according to Andrea Novick, attorney and founder of the <a href="http://www.electiontransparencycoalition.org/">Election Transparency Coalition</a>. "If the levers disappear, so do our voting rights, because we'll never again know if the votes have been counted accurately." ETC is preparing to file a lawsuit against the state of NY to have the new optical scan voting machines declared unconstitutional because they conceal vote counting from public view. Over 200 years of case law protecting the public's right to transparency in its vote-counting processes would be obliterated by the new voting system. "Even when optical scanners appear to be performing smoothly, there is absolutely no way to know that their secret software has not been corrupted."</span></p><p style="font-family: verdana;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style=";font-size:100%;" ><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p style="font-family: verdana;" class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-size:100%;" ><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" ><span style="font-family: verdana;font-size:100%;" >The Association of Towns and 20 counties appealed to the State Legislature to repeal the Election Reform and Modernization Act, the law mandating the changeover from NY's current transparent voting system to the optical scan system, yet the State appears determined to certify the new machines apparently regardless of whether or not they are trustworthy.</span><br /></span></p><p style="font-weight: bold;" class="MsoNormal"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Oppose Certification of Optical Scanners! Attend State BoE meeting 12/15 in Albany!</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;font-size:85%;" >Let's fill the room and show the State Board of Elections that the public cares about our elections and insists on constitutional, transparent election systems.<br /><br />Tuesday, December 15, 2009<br />Noon<br />State Board of Election Offices<br />40 Steuben Street, 4th Floor<br />Albany, New York<br />http://www.elections.state.ny.us/</span><br /><span style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10pt;" ><o:p></o:p></span></p> <!--EndFragment-->Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-65625940622268499372009-11-27T10:00:00.005-05:002009-11-27T13:34:47.056-05:00The Plunging Pilot Project: Impossible Vote Totals in NY-23<p><span style="font-style: italic;">Re-posted from our <a href="http://tr.im/FRIu">"Levers" site</a><br /></span></p><p><br /></p><p>Last night, on the eve of Thanksgiving, election fraud investigator Richard Hayes Phillips, Ph.D.<a href="http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8425:impossible-numbers-certified-in-ny-23&catid=60:st-lawrence-news&Itemid=175"> </a>published an article in the <a href="http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/" target="_blank">Governeur Times </a>revealing <a href="http://www.gouverneurtimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8425:impossible-numbers-certified-in-ny-23&catid=60:st-lawrence-news&Itemid=175">Impossible Numbers Certified in NY-23.</a> Phillips is best known for his book, <em><a href="http://witnesstoacrime.com/" target="_blank">Witness to a Crime: A Citizens’ Audit of an American Election</a></em>, detailing the investigation he led of the 2004 presidential election in Ohio. But he actually lives in St. Lawrence County, NY. So when questions began being raised about the vote counts in the special Congressional election earlier this month, Phillips was quickly on the case.</p> <p>His article released last night reveals, “The election results certified by the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections for New York’s 23rd Congressional District contain some numbers that are mathematically impossible.” The article goes on to detail the <em>negative </em>numbers included in certified vote totals. Read it. It reveals important information everyone concerned about democracy should know.</p> <p>St. Lawrence County was part of the State’s “pilot project,” an early rollout of the optical scan voting technology that will be required to replace lever voting systems by our next election — if not stopped by legal action. The Election Transparency Coalition is preparing to file litigation to have concealed vote counting — such as the counting that takes place inside optical scan voting systems — declared unconstitutional.</p> <p>St. Lawrence County’s now-certified election results cannot be accurate. The true vote count cannot be known. And while other counties involved in the early rollout of electronic vote-counting systems may have produced <em>possible </em>vote totals, their true vote counts are no more knowable. <em><strong>Only with a system where the public has access to meaningful observation of every step of the vote-counting process do we have a basis for confidence in election results.</strong></em></p> <p>This is why Virginia Martin, Democratic Election Commissioner from Columbia County, recently <a href="http://re-mediaetc.blogspot.com/2009/10/ny-election-official-would-refuse-to.html" target="_blank">testified </a>that she would <em>refuse to certify </em>an election in which she could not verify the accuracy of the vote count.</p> <p>Richard Hayes Phillips joins ETC in supporting NY’s time-tested and transparent lever voting system. The reasons for his support are detailed in his article, <a href="http://witnesstoacrime.com/levers.doc" target="_blank">“In Defense of Lever Voting Machines,”</a> published on his own <a href="http://www.witnesstoacrime.com/" target="_blank">website</a>, and reiterated in the Gouverneur Times piece.</p> <p>While the pilot project is clearly in a nosedive, the State is proceeding with its plan to certify the very electronic voting system responsible for the impossible numbers in the NY-23 race. This certification would be meaningless and would lead to elections that are just as meaningless. As Phillips says, “How can we have a democracy if we cannot know if the vote count is accurate? If election officials cannot know, and if the candidates cannot know, and if the voters cannot know that the official results are true and correct, why even have an election?”</p> <p>Please<a href="http://electiontransparencycoalition.org/what-else/" target="_self"> join us</a> in our work to stop the abandonment of NY’s working, affordable, trustworthy voting system and its replacement with systems that keep the true vote count secret from the voters themselves.</p><p style="text-align: right;">by Emily Levy</p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-style: italic;">Emily Levy is the Election Transparency Coalition project coordinator.</span><br /></p><p>—–</p> <p>On this Thanksgiving, we at ETC are thankful for the work of Dr. Phillips, Commissioner Martin and all those who dedicate themselves to the constitutional principles of transparent democracy.</p>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-63662325316743482292009-11-05T16:00:00.003-05:002009-11-05T16:16:55.457-05:00Problems Seen with New Voting Machines Are Tip of The Iceberg<span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style=";font-family:";" >Electronic Voting Machines Sell Tammany Hall Repackaged as “Modern”</span></b></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 10pt;"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:100%;" >Breakdowns of new electronic voting machines have already made news in <a href="http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091104/NEWS05/311049940">St. Lawrence</a>, <a href="http://www.9wsyr.com/mostpopular/story/Fulton-County-machines-break-court-order-issued/dSY52Bssm0iYlGz06S7Chg.cspx">Fulton</a> and <a href="http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20091104/NEWS03/311049978">Lewis</a> Counties. Official results in some races may not be known for a week or more, frustrating NY voters accustomed to results on election night. But fury may have been their response had they fully understood that with the state's new optical scan technology, the genuine results of NY's elections will never be known. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 10pt;"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:100%;" >The optical scan machines mandated to replace all lever voting machines by next year count paper ballots electronically using concealed software that can undetectably alter the outcome, whether intentionally or unintentionally. "What you don't know can hurt you," said Andrea Novick, attorney and founder of the <a href="http://www.nylevers.wordpress.com/">Election Transparency Coalition</a> (ETC). "The problems seen by voters and election workers Tuesday are nothing compared to the problems that are invisible. In the counties participating in the state's early rollout of the optical scanners Tuesday where machines broke down, election officials are at least aware that there was a problem. Where the scanners appeared to run smoothly, election officials, candidates and voters are led to believe everything is fine. But either way, whether the optical scanners appear to be functioning properly or not, the true count is unknowable." </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 10pt;"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:100%;" >Because the working parts of a lever machine are visible, elections officials and observers can witness all critical steps and know the machine’s count is accurate. But under ERMA (the Election Reform and Modernization Act) the certainty of the election night count is replaced with an unreliable electronic count, subject to verification if a subsequent 3% manual count matches the computer tally. “We are abandoning our transparent, secure system for knowingly exploitable vote-counting computers,” explained Novick.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 10pt;"><span style=";font-family:";font-size:100%;" >State Elections Commissioner Douglas Kellner confirmed the new computers’ untrustworthiness, stating, "The system in New York is not to rely on the machines, but to rely on the paper," referring to ERMA’s post-election night hand count of some paper ballots. Historically, NY, learned not to trust any step taken outside of public view after repeated Tammany Hall style elections. Now ERMA mandates reliance on paper ballots that have been removed from the public eye. "If we don't stop ERMA," says Novick, "elections will from this day forward become what a New York court has already declared to be 'a useless formality.'" The ETC is preparing to file suit to stop the changeover to electronic vote-counting on constitutional grounds.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-align: center; text-indent: -1in;" align="center"><span style="font-size:100%;"><b><span style=";font-family:";" ># # #</span></b></span></p>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-44545648097227586342009-10-25T00:02:00.018-04:002009-10-25T01:36:35.852-04:00NY: Election Official Would Refuse to Certify Electronic Vote Count<span style="font-weight: bold;">Columbia County Election Commissioner Testifies at Public Hearing</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />New York City, </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Oct. 23, </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">2009 --</span><br /><br /><b><span style=""><o:p></o:p></span></b><span style=""></span><span style=""><o:p></o:p></span><span style="">What might have been a quiet hearing of the State Assembly's Standing Committee on Election Law today became instead a public altercation as speaker after speaker criticized the State's move to electronically counted ballots. The change is slated to take effect next year, as outlined in the Election Reform and Modernization Act (ERMA), which outlaws the state's time-tested and widely trusted lever voting machines. <o:p></o:p></span> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="">Speakers took issue with the new voting systems on multiple grounds including cost, accuracy, and dependability. Concerns about votes counted in secret and the ease of manipulation of election results with the new system abounded.<br /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="">Columbia County Democratic Election Commissioner Virginia Martin testified that "the mandated transition to electronic voting and vote-counting will likely prevent me as commissioner from doing my job, which is to certify to the accuracy of election numbers." </span><span style=""><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="">While she praised some of the State's actions to comply with </span><span style="">new election law, she said the new computerized voting systems are poorly made </span><span style="">and break down often, in contrast to the dependable lever voting systems currently in use. "If Columbia County starts using software to count votes, I will not certify an election unless an appropriately designed audit of the paper ballots is conducted. So far, the State Board [of Elections] has not mandated an audit that audit experts agree will expose inaccurate counts."</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt; font-family: courier new; font-weight: bold;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOSdIhGaaXK8cLa0W-rN2kIvupVgSQp4HvXQTyvSI-vA6PiNVMbVMZKZU6hOXcbdwnks93FBin9D_iTSxWFB1l4WZnD6peedg-kR9SZKejEDN1jgTBbZR725Jy001m_7REQWcKyDHJIkM/s1600-h/MartinNYAssemOct22_09_1766.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 300px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOSdIhGaaXK8cLa0W-rN2kIvupVgSQp4HvXQTyvSI-vA6PiNVMbVMZKZU6hOXcbdwnks93FBin9D_iTSxWFB1l4WZnD6peedg-kR9SZKejEDN1jgTBbZR725Jy001m_7REQWcKyDHJIkM/s400/MartinNYAssemOct22_09_1766.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5396391088438721106" border="0" /></a><span style=";font-family:times new roman;font-size:100%;" >Commissioner Virginia Martin Testifying (Photo by Russell Branca)</span></p><span style="font-weight: bold;font-family:courier new;font-size:85%;" ><span style=""></span></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="">Exorbitant costs are also of concern to Martin. "Boards [of Elections] across the state have encountered enormous resistance from their counties when they have tried to get the funds these unfunded mandates would have us incur. I know of two cases in which county budgets have tripled."<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoFooter"><span style="">The panel was surprised to know that Commissioner Martin has an understanding of how the lever machines work. "I believe it’s critically important that commissioners and poll workers across the state understand how the machines work," Martin said. "In the case of lever machines," she added, "it’s simple."</span></p><span style="">More photos and testimony are available <a href="http://www.wheresthepaper.org/ny.html#HearingAssem">here</a>.</span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-right: 0in; margin-left: 1in; margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; text-indent: -1in;" align="center"><b><span style=""><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><b><span style=""></span></b> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-66196999356763928892009-09-14T13:16:00.039-04:002009-09-17T14:21:10.621-04:00NYC Never Sleeps! Village Independent Dems Opt Out of Op Scan<span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://www.wheresthepaper.org/VID_KeepLeversJuly23_09.pdf">Keep-the-Levers Resolution</a> passes after informed public debate.</span><br /><br />The more you know about lever voting machines, the more you want to stay with them. This experience - that an informed public prefers lever voting over the vagaries of electronic vote scanners - was demonstrated once again on July 9th at <a href="http://re-mediaetc.blogspot.com/2009/07/lever-voting-advocates-go-head-to-head.html">a debate</a> at <strong style="font-weight: normal;">St. Mark’s Church In-the-Bowery</strong> in Manhattan. The event was sponsored by the Village Independent Democrats, a 53-year-old organization established to provide a constant and rigorous examination of local and national issues in the light of independent, liberal Democratic principles. True to their goals of promoting measures designed to serve all the people and to further the interest and participation of all citizens in the civic affairs of their community, the VID presented "<span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">The Threat to Voting in New York and What to Do About It"</span> featuring Douglas Kellner, Co-Chair of the New York State Board of Elections, New York University Professor Mark Crispin Miller, renowned author of "<span style="font-style: italic;">Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform</span>" and attorney Andi Novick, founder of the Election Transparency Coalition.<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">The pros and cons of computerized vote counting, paper ballots, and lever machines were discussed in a well-structured format that, while strictly controlled by the moderator, eventually allowed everyone to participate. For perhaps the first time in a public forum, the hard questions about computerized vote counting were asked -- and at least partially answered.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Among the public participants during the energetic question and answer period, were Columbia County Democratic Election Commissioner Virginia Martin; Teresa Hommel, Chair of the Community Church of New York's Task Force on Election Integrity; and E-Voter Education Project Founder Howard Stanislevic. The experiences of these professionals added an even broader perspective to the information presented by the invited speakers and elicited by audience questions.<br /><br /></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Highlights of the evening have been distilled into the following 15-minute video. With additional commentary explaining the precedents established by the rulings of New York's highest court, this video demonstrates concisely how New York's new election law will violate the inalienable right to self-government. We urge all New Yorkers and voters everywhere to watch it:<br /><br /></span><object height="300" width="400"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=6564075&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1"><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=6564075&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="300" width="400"></embed></object><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/6564075">IT'S TIME TO TAKE A STAND FOR OUR DEMOCRACY</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/etcnys">Andrea Novick</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com/">Vimeo</a>.</p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Professor Miller </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">discussed the culpability of vendors in the punch card debacle that brought us the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida, paving the way for the Help America Vote Act (</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/hava/HAVA_2002.php">HAVA</a></span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">) and the resulting rush to more electronic vote counting. Miller also</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> spoke of the</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> relative lack of media coverage regarding such events, and the questionable results of more recent optical scan elections. </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">He said that such negligence leaves the majority of the public unaware of the extreme hazards of e-vote counting both here and abroad.<br /><br />Commissioner Kellner agreed with, and in fact was the first to promulgate, the position of Andi Novick and the ETC that lever voting machines are allowed under <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/hava/HAVA_2002.php">HAVA</a> and that it is <a href="http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/hava/Chapter506.pdf">ERMA</a> -- the New York State legislation -- which mandates the replacement of the lever machines with electronics. But the Commissioner then confused the issue by declaring that New York is under federal court order to replace the levers, as if the federal court had determined HAVA required the levers' replacement. But it is New York that entered into a voluntary agreement with the Department of Justice and federal court judge to replace the levers, as mandated in ERMA. The court 'so ordered' that agreement of the parties. The court never made a ruling that the levers had to be replaced. No one asked for such a ruling. The State was agreeing to comply with its own state law. As Andi Novick explained, the state law is unconstitutional, and an agreement based on unconstitutional law is void and unenforceable.<br /><br />Although Commissioner Kellner stated that elections should never be decided on faith and trust, he was unable to respond when it was made clear by other speakers that New York would<span style="font-style: italic;"> not</span> be relying on the paper ballots to determine the outcomes of elections, but would in fact be trusting the computers. Commissioner Kellner is a conscientious administrator and, in all fairness, it should be noted that his equivocation is a reflection of the extreme duress our election officials are under to institute a fatally flawed system.<br /><br />It was obvious and understandable that the State Board of Elections is ill-prepared to run elections on computerized voting systems. For example, Kellner, who routinely consults with computer experts, seemed unaware of the difference between source code and object code (<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">the latter being the software that actually resides in optical scanners and the Election Management System PC that programs them).</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span>He incorrectly claimed that computer scientists, and presumably even election officials, could tell that the code running on the machines was the correct "source code." Notwithstanding his confusing source code with object code, however, the fact remains that no one can verify that <span style="font-style: italic;">correct</span> software is running in a computerized voting system on election day. With such a misunderstanding prevalent, it's no wonder that election officials are willing to trust our votes to computer code and the vendors who write it.<br /><br />Kellner finally admitted that New York will not be trusting the electronic machines after all, but instead, will be relying on the paper ballots. But this was clearly wishful thinking on his part. While Kellner seemed to imply that recounts could be had more or less at the drop of a hat, he offered no examples other than recounts of relatively few <span style="font-style: italic;">absentee ballots. </span><br /><br />Novick insisted that the State's highest court has repeatedly declared post-election-night counting of ballots already counted at the polls to be far too dangerous to be used to determine correct election results. Only absentee, emergency and disputed ballots are counted post-election, she said, leaving the vast majority of paper ballots to be counted only by computers.<br /><br />Columbia County Election Commissioner Martin asked Kellner about the costs of replacing levers with scanners. Kellner said the Federal government gave New York about $50-million to replace the levers, but he explained that it would cost closer to $200-million to finish the job. This is consistent with independent cost studies that have shown that all the Federal money provided to the State under the Help America Vote Act will be depleted after only one year of lever replacement by scanners.<br /><br />Howard Stanislevic commented on the State Board of Elections' lack of action to beef up New York's future post-election auditing. The state will only verify 3% of scanner tallies -- barely enough to confirm the winners of landslide elections in gerrymandered districts -- despite <a href="http://e-voter.blogspot.com/2009/07/ny-advocates-to-state-board-of.html">many calls</a> for stronger auditing requirements </span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">for over a year by good government groups such as NYPIRG, Common Cause/NY and the League of Women Voters</span><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">.<br /><br />After the forum on July 9th, the Village Independent Democrats joined over <a href="http://nylevers.wordpress.com/">twenty counties</a>, several labor unions, the <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.nytowns.org">Association of Towns of the State of New York</a>, individual towns, villages, good government organizations and thousands of New Yorkers in passing resolutions in favor of retaining lever voting machines. When the public is given the facts, they make the right decisions.<br /></span>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-48615832806893773272009-09-13T13:45:00.000-04:002009-09-15T22:39:11.448-04:00Statement of Support from National Election Integrity ExpertsIt is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that every critical component of the electoral process be subjected to contemporaneous public scrutiny in order for the people to retain control over those who are our public servants. We, the undersigned, have been working toward this end, many of us full time and at little or no compensation for many years. Together we have a broad and deep range of knowledge and experience.<br /><br />We understand that New York's statutory and judicial law has upheld these constitutional requirements, mandating a transparent election process in which authorized observers have the responsibility to witness and verify each step of the canvass before it is completed, resulting in a demonstrably accurate and certain count on election night, arrived at under conditions of uninterrupted public scrutiny.<br /><br />We consider the New York litigation to be one of the best opportunities the nation has for serious judicial consideration of the constitutional implications of concealed vote counting. We encourage all who are dedicated to the constitutional principles of democracy to offer whatever help they can to achieve this breakthrough ruling.<br /><br />Bev Harris, WA - investigative reporter, founder and executive director of Black Box Voting, author of Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century.<br /><br />Abbe Waldman DeLozier, TX - co-editor, co-author Hacked! High Tech Election Theft in America-11 Experts Expose the Truth.<br /><br />Nancy Tobi, NH - founder Democracy for New Hampshire, Chair of the Fair Elections Committee (NH), and Legislative Coordinator of Election Defense Alliance.<br /><br />Dave Berman, CA - co-founder Voter Confidence Committee of Humboldt County, California.<br /><br />Sally Castleman, MA<br />- Co-founder and first National Chair, Election Defense Alliance.<br /><br />Judith B. Alter Ed.D., CA - Emeritus UCLA Professor, Director, ProtectCalifornia Ballots.<br /><br />Emily Levy, CA - election integrity advocate who has worked on crucial projects in New Mexico, Ohio, California, and NY, as well as projects of national scope.<br /><br />Jonathan Simon, MA - co-founder of Election Defense Alliance, former political polling research analyst and author numerous papers addressing statistical anomalies and other evidence of computerized election fraud.<br /><br />Joan Brunwasser, co-founder of Citizens for Election Reform (CER) and the Election Integrity Editor for OpEdNews. Her own articles also appear at RepublicMedia.TV and Scoop.co.nz.<br /><br />Mark Crispin Miller, NY - Professor of Culture and Communication at NYU, author of Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy andFooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform.<br /><br />Dr. Victoria Lovegren, Ohio - Ohio Vigilance, governing board member; Computer Science, Systems Analysis, Data Analysis, Decision Science, Mathematics<br /><br />Mary Ann Gould, PA - Executive Director of Coalition for Voting Integrity, host of "Voice of the Voters.<br /><br />Richard Hayes Phillips, NY- professor, researcher, Author of Witness to a Crime: A Citizens' Audit of an American Election.<br /><br />Bruce O'Dell, MN - E-commerce security consultant; co-founded US Count Votes and founding member of Election Defense Alliance.Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-70829278417150396852009-07-11T09:55:00.004-04:002009-07-11T10:52:41.569-04:00Election Commissioners Party With VendorsMore than 18 New York counties <a href="http://etcnys.org/">have passed resolutions</a> asking to keep their lever voting machines and the governor has issued directives to limit state employee travel expenses; nevertheless 180 county election commissioners and staff spent their evenings partying at events sponsored by voting machine vendors who plied their wares at the four day annual Election Commissioners Association meeting at the Finger Lakes in late June.<br /><br />Here are some highlights of the <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/06/29/2009-06-29_with_albany_in_chaos_board_of_elections_staff_live_it_up_in_finger_lakes.html">Daily News report of the event</a> which is worth reading in full, especially for the photos:<br /><br /><p> </p><p style="font-style: italic;">At this conference, vendors seeking business with election boards across the state picked up the tab for food and open bars...</p><p style="font-style: italic;">On Wednesday, commissioners and staffers attended work sessions about paper ballets, vendor contracts and other election issues. At one point, <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Toyota+Sequoia" title="Toyota Sequoia">Sequoia</a> and ES&S - two companies vying to supply electronic voting machines to election boards across New York - pitched their wares...</p><p style="font-style: italic;">As the party ended, some revelers re-created a scene from "Animal House" by jumping up and down, yelling "Shout!" to the <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/The+Isley+Brothers" title="The Isley Brothers">Isley Brothers</a>' hit.</p> <p>[New York Election Commissioners Association president William]<span style="font-style: italic;">Scriber said he didn't know which vendor paid for the private party room and liquor and had "no recollection" of who threw the costume party. A hotel sales rep did not return calls.</span></p><p><span style="font-style: italic;"></span>Read more: <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/06/29/2009-06-29_with_albany_in_chaos_board_of_elections_staff_live_it_up_in_finger_lakes.html?page=1#ixzz0KxdfMqNZ&C">http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/06/29/2009-06-29_with_albany_in_chaos_board_of_elections_staff_live_it_up_in_finger_lakes.html?page=1#ixzz0KxdfMqNZ&C</a><br /></p><p><br /></p><div id="TixyyLink" style="border: medium none ; overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br /></div>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4695864241331002987.post-70758700435743113812009-07-07T20:55:00.014-04:002009-07-07T21:39:45.275-04:00Lever Voting Advocates Go Head-To-Head with State Board of Elections Commissioner in Public Forum on Thursday<div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">As State Pushes Ahead with Rollout of Computerized Voting Systems, </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Election Watchdogs Threaten Legal Action</span><br /></div><span style="font-weight: bold;"><br /></span></div><span style="font-weight: bold;">What: </span>Public Forum: The Threat to Voting in New York and What to Do About It<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">When: </span>Thursday, July 9, 2009 at 7:30 p.m.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Where: </span>Main Sanctuary at St. Marks Church in the Bowery, 10th Street and 2nd Ave in Manhattan<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Who: </span>Douglas Kellner, Commissioner of NYS Board of Elections<br />Mark Crispin Miller, renowned author of "Fooled Again, The Real Case for Electoral Reform"<br />Andi Novick, attorney and driving force behind efforts to preserve New York's constitutionally-compliant lever voting system, founder of the Election Transparency Coalition<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sponsored by the Village Independent Democrats</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Why: </span>New York State is the only state in the U.S. that conducts elections in a transparent and verifiable manner. All other states have moved to electronic vote-counting systems that make it impossible for election officials, official observers, candidates, or the public to determine whether the announced vote totals accurately represent the votes cast. These concealed vote-counting systems violate the principles of a constitutional democracy as represented in two centuries of statutory law and judicial precedence interpreting New York’s Constitution, and as recently held by Germany’s Constitutional Court.<br /><br />Yet electronic voting systems are slated to be fully operational in New York by 2010. And 1.4 million of New York's registered voters <a href="http://e-voter.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-york-rolls-out-uncertified-voting.html">will be forced</a> to vote on them <a href="http://e-voter.blogspot.com/2009/06/lwv-to-nys-board-of-elections-pilot-off.html">this year</a>, without even the weak assurance of State or Federal "certification" or a 100% election-night hand count to confirm that the systems' count was accurate.<br /><br />At this free public event, Andi Novick will outline the reasons New York's Election Reform and Modernization Act (ERMA) is unconstitutional, Mark Crispin Miller will discuss the dangers of electronic vote counting systems, and Douglas Kellner will explain the state's insistence on an expensive change in election technology beyond what is required by the federal government.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Links: </span>Andi Novick/Election Transparency Coalition: <a href="http://nylevers.wordpress.com/">http://nylevers.wordpress.com/</a><br />Mark Crispin Miller: <a href="http://markcrispinmiller.com/">http://markcrispinmiller.com/</a><br />Douglas Kellner: <a href="http://www.elections.state.ny.us/">http://www.elections.state.ny.us/</a><br />Village Independent Democrats: <a href="http://villagedemocrats.org/">http://villagedemocrats.org/</a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"># # #</div>Election Transparency Coalitionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12263324481763929808noreply@blogger.com