Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

A new think-tank has stepped forward to have their voice heard in regards to voting technology. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation correctly argues that paper trails don’t ensure accurate e-voting totals. We agree with that argument. However, rather than use that argument in a move to ban non-transparent DRE voting machines, this group makes that argument and then argues that more non-transparent, unverifiable technology should be used along with the DREs. They want more unproven technology that costs more money and further removes the voters' ability to have a say in the election process.

Today was the deadline for the New Jersey Attorney General to announce what their back-up plan was if vvpat printers were not certified for use on the state’s DREs. The plan? A change to optical-scan and paper ballots? Hand-counted paper ballots? Not hardly. Their plan is to do what they have already told the court they would not do; they want to ask the state legislature to extend the deadline for another six months. Today’s “Enemy of Democracy” Award is presented to New Jersey state Attorney General Anne Milgram.

Those stories, and all the other notables today (a bunch of 'em!) linked below as usual...

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

Today’s “Enemy of Democracy” is George Gilbert, the director of the Guilford County, North Carolina, Board of Elections. In making an argument against a voter verified paper audit trail and against HR-811, George uses a disingenuous argument when he states, “Some people have convinced them there's something magical about counting it [the vote] by hand.” He added errors are more likely to occur when ballots are tabulated by hand and results will be significantly slower. Clearly George would like all who will believe him to think that the choice is only paperless DREs or hand-counted paper ballots. George conveniently forgets that optical-scan machines are used in almost every county in the country and they are used much more successfully than his favorite paperless DRE machines.

Meanwhile, where are the final reports that were part of the California “Top-To-Bottom Review”? Why has the state kept them from the public? What is in those reports that is so secret?

Those stories, and many more, all linked below...

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

Franklin Co., Ohio, Board of Elections Chairman Matt Damschroder said, "I don't think that anyone can point to any empirical evidence that would lead any reasonable person to say the voting systems used in Ohio are flawed, thus requiring a new round of testing." Is this man kidding? He points to the federal and state testing and then makes a totally idiotic statement like that. He only needs to look back to the last general election and how poorly machines operated in his state. He only needs to look at the California “Top-To-Bottom Review” to see what federal testing means. Perhaps it’s time to begin naming an occasional “Enemy of Democracy.” Matt is it until replaced by another numbskull....

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

The 2006 elections cost the tax payers of Cuyahoga Co Ohio $47.86 per voter. Franklin Co paid $16.04 and Hamilton Co paid $21.30 per voter. Part of the cost for Cuyahoga Co is that every election they must spend $800,000 for 6000 new memory cards. The cards from the previous elections have to stay in storage for 22 months. Blackwell sold these systems to the counties based on the fact that they were supposed to be inexpensive and easy to use. He lied.

Meanwhile the state legislature has told SOS Brunner that she will have to wait for two more weeks before they can announce whether they will release the funds she needs to complete a review of the state’s voting systems.

Last Nov. ES&S had a lot of problem with delivering paper ballots for their op-scans and electronic ballots for their voting simulators (DREs) to their customers on time. The excuse? Too much work to do all at one time. Now, St. Francis Co Arkansas wants to do a school election and begin early voting tomorrow. ES&S has delivered no paper or electronic ballots. What’s your excuse this time, ES&S??

Links to those stories, and the other notable voting news today, all below...05

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

Mississippi’s election laws are very questionable. During the August 7 state primary some voters who were not able to use Wilkinson Co’s DRE machines used paper ballots. These would be absentee, affidavit (provisional) and curb-side (for voters with disabilities). In Mississippi the political parties administer their primaries. When all of the votes were counted three incumbents were re-elected. However, there were allegations of wrong-doing in regards to some Democrat paper ballots so the county Dem. Executive Board disqualified all paper ballots which then caused the three incumbents to lose their elections. How many good ballots were disqualified? No one knows.

Next week we can look forward to something being done in regards to HR-811; or nothing at all.

Will California finally release the results of their Document Inspection portion of the “Top-To-Bottom Review” and will the media even know about it? Will the state of New Jersey finally provide an alternate plan for when the vvpat printers are not ready for use? And there is supposed to be a follow-up on “Dan Rather Reports” as early as next week....

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

According to a transcript of the Rules Committee meeting on Wednesday, Congressman Alcee Hastings had the following to say about HR-811: “I need to be persuaded. Otherwise I would do something that I have not done since I have been here, and that is vote against a proposed rule. If we ain’t gonna fix it all, then we oughtn’t fix something that ain’t a fix and is not an assurance that we have done the best we can. This isn’t good enough for me.” Meanwhile a Cuyahoga Co Election Commissioner ranted, “We should sue Diebold,” when the discussion came around to the growing cost of the county’s voting machines. ...

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

Today’s news includes more and varied articles on HR-811, including an editorial against the use of DREs from the NYTimes.

It appears that the bill will go back to the Rules Committee for another shot at a decision from that body. If it clears the Rules Committee in some form it will go to the floor. What is still unknown is if and how amendments will be handled. There is also more from the New Jersey court decision.

Also reported is that the Ohio SoS has named the firms that will be involved in the state’s attempt to copy California’s “Top-To-Bottom” Review. The problem is that one of the ‘firms’ that will be involved is also an Independent Test Authority that probably tested some of the voting systems used in the state. That fact is a real “head scratcher.”

Another county has stepped up and decided that DREs are garbage and they will be reverting back to optical-scan. Good decision Taylor County, West Virginia.

All of those voting news stories, and more from today, linked below...

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

It’s been a hectic day today with HR-811 going to the Rules Committee as it must before going to the floor for a vote. The Rules Committee is supposed to decide whether amendments can be added to the bill; what amendments will be accepted; or whether the process will be open to all amendments. While some are telling their supporters that the bill is going to the floor tomorrow, we are hearing from a committee staffer that no decision has been made and the bill may still have to go before the committee again.

Meanwhile a New Jersey Superior Court Judge has told the state that they had better figure out how to replace all 10,000 of the state’s DRE machines with optical scan and the state has 8 days to figure it out. It seems that the vvpat printers to be used on DREs made by Sequoia and Avante have been proven to be garbage and the state ignored a ruling from the court made weeks ago that the state have a back-up plan by today. The state ignored the court.

Those stories, and the other notable voting news from today, all linked below as usual...

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

In yesterday’s DVN I said, “When the bill goes to the floor there will be a bipartisan 'unfunded mandate' amendment that will be allowed to be voted on and added to the bill if it passes.” I should have said that there will LIKELY be a bipartisan “unfunded mandate” amendment. The bill actually goes before the House Rules Committee at 3PM (EDT) tomorrow, so it will probably not go to the floor before Thursday. ...

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

HR-811 is rumored to be going to the floor of the House for a vote on Wed. Sept. 5. They would not allow it to go for a vote unless they had the votes to pass it so, I imagine, it is now a done deal. However, suddenly we are being informed that those who were hoping for the benefits of the bill for 2008 are probably going to be disappointed. It seems that through the writing of the bill and three complete rewrites there is a funding problem. When the bill goes to the floor there will be a bipartisan “unfunded mandate” amendment that will be allowed to be voted on and added to the bill if it passes. This amendment will require action on the bill to be held up until funding can be appropriated; in other words 2010 or 2012 or never. So everything is status quo for 2008 (DREs, no vvpat, no audits) except no one can say if the non-funding portions of the bill would also be delayed. So the protection of the vendor’s software may happen upon signature by the President. The vendors are protected while the voters get no protections. And, Holt and his people knew about this for months. I’m told it was public information but if no one points you to the information the information is not public; it’s hidden in plain sight....

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

"Suppose an article had been introduced into the Constitution, empowering the United States to regulate the elections for the particular States, would any man have hesitated to condemn it, both as an unwarrantable transposition of power, and as a premeditated engine for the destruction of the State governments?" --- Federalist No. 59, 1788 In today’s world yes, the authors of the Help America Vote Act of 2002 would hesitate. Rush Holt would hesitate. Diane Feinstein would hesitate....

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

The Colorado Secretary of State seems to be having a bit of problem with the big 4 vendors. The state has been ordered by the court to re-certify all voting systems used in the state. This order is a result of a lawsuit that proved that previous SoS Gigi Dennis had failed in her job to ensure voting systems were actually certified. Now Secretary Coffman is trying to follow the court order but the vendors seem to be standing in the way and making the pre-certification testing and inspection a process that is harder than necessary. Of course the vendors claim that they are doing all they can to assist the state. One has to wonder why Secretary Coffman would lie about the lack of support. Do the vendors want to drag the process out as long as possible so time runs short and the certification process has to be rushed? Are they all trying to hide something?...

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

A Sequoia VP told Riverside Co., California, officials that the company may be willing to discuss a rebate or credit if state or federal regulators decertify their equipment. May be willing? The county, like every county that has purchased these machines, needs to demand its money (our tax money) back from the vendors. Sequoia sold its machines as being accessible. They aren’t accessible as proven by the California “Top-To-Bottom” review. The company sold its machines as meeting the voting systems standards. As proven by the source code review team, Sequoia uses banned software components. May be willing? If Sequoia misrepresented its system at any time to those who were spending our money, then Sequoia needs to give our money back or go to court and prove that it hasn’t misrepresented its product. And the other vendors need to do the same in other counties across the nation. Meanwhile, KY has discovered that machines used in their largest county were not state certified; more on the retirement of Conny McCormack; and the four major vendors are dragging their feet in providing information to Colorado that is necessary to allow the state to do court mandated inspections....

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

Just after the “Dan Rather Report” ran for the first time Sequoia Voting Systems issued a press release and promised exculpatory evidence in the way of documents. These documents were promised to demonstrate proper paper thickness; to demonstrate the ballot card chad removal pressure was within the appropriate industry specifications; and to demonstrate proper overall specifications, signed by quality control. Over a week after the press release the documents were finally released. The documents did nothing that was promised. What was presented was numbers on paper with no comparison with the industry standards and no signatures. The only dates on the documents were pre-Florida primary, which brings into question whether the documents even represent documents for the general election run of ballot cards. Also of interest today is that Conny McCormack, Diebold’s spokeswoman and LA County Registrar of Voters, has decided to retire....

Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org

As reported by Kim Zetter in her Wired Blog and yours truly on OpEdNews, ES&S has responded to the EAC’s rebuke for not disclosing that they were manufacturing voting machines in Manila, The Philippines. ES&S arrogantly acted like a spoiled child in their response to the EAC. In the end they provided a list that included factories in Manila, Taiwan, and China, but not before trying to blame the EAC for their corporate reporting failures. Have you ever noticed that these vendors take no ownership of any problems? Vote-flipping is always the voters' fault. Machine failure is always the poll workers' fault....