Guest Blogged by John Gideon of VotersUnite.org
Election officials in Pima Co., Arizona, have been on the wrong side of issues quite a bit lately. Because of this it is surprising that they may ask the Secretary of State to change the “Election Procedures Manual” to disallow tabulation of votes before election day, increase the size of hand-counted audits, disallow the use of modems to transmit results, improve ballot-verification procedures and chain-of-custody records, and other worthy changes. The county also wants to totally get rid of all DREs. It’s amazing what happens at times when a good citizen group stands up and demands that changes be made; people actually begin to listen.
{Ed Note: Yes, and it doesn’t hurt that they had to take the county officials to court! Leave them little other option, eventually, but to do the above, or end up in court again. Thus, the actions of the Pima County officials aren’t actually that “surprising” after all, given the tremendous work by the citizen advocates there, as John points out. – BF}
Meanwhile, in Georgia, citizens involved in an electronic voting lawsuit have announced they have filed a summary judgment motion seeking to ban the machines. The motion “centers on a lack of equal protection and due process that the plaintiffs claim Election Day voters have when compared to absentee voters who use optically scanned paper ballots. The motion contends that retention of tangible paper ballots is required for voters to verify their actual ballot choices, for election officials to provide true recounts as needed, to investigate voting discrepancies, to prevent fraud and to produce evidence for contested elections.”
Those stories, and the rest of today’s notable voting news headlines, all linked below as usual…
- NAtional: Editorial – Safeguarding Electronic Voting
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/opinion/04fri2.html?ref=opinion - NAtional: The War On Voting Rights: Voter Fraud Smears, Voter ID And Corruption At DOJ
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_project__080403_the_war_on_voting_ri.htm - NAtional: Papantonio and Bender on the Hart InterCivic Fraud Suit
https://bradblog.com/?p=5867 - NAtional: The Cost of E-Voting
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/the-cost-of-e-v.html - AZ: Pima County – County appeals vote-databases ‘public’ ruling
Wants secretary of state to intervene; it’s on list of security recommendations
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/232862 - CO: Colorado AG expecting suit over electronic voting machines
http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/210360-colorado-ag-expecting-suit-over-electronic-voting-machines - FL: Sarasota County – State investigation, prosecutor clear Dent of election tampering
http://www.pelicanpress.org/main.asp?SectionID=130&SubSectionID=225&ArticleID=4936 - GA: Motion Filed to Ban Georgia Voting Equipment
http://www.voterga.org/press/index.cfm?Fuseaction=press - GA: Muscogee County – Political confusion: Removal letter confuses law-abiding voters
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/story/287183.html - IA: Judge: Iowa voting forms violate official English law
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080403/NEWS/80403032/0/archive - IN: MicroVote pressed to pay ’06 penalties
http://www.journalgazette.net/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/NEWS07/804040340/1002/LOCAL - IN: Voting Machine Maker Could Be Suspended for Five Years
MicroVote calls proposed punishment for missed certification in 2006 too harsh
http://www.wibc.com/News/Story.aspx?ID=88236 - IN: MicroVote Responds to Secretary of State
http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=28708 - IN: Another Voting Machine Company on the Ropes as Indiana Slaps MicroVote
May be Banned from Doing business in State for Five Years After Missing Recertification Deadline Prior to 2006 Election…
https://bradblog.com/?p=5868 - ME: Senate approves National Popular Vote initiative
http://www.politickerme.com/jessicaalaimo/1223/senate-approves-national-popular-vote-initiative - NJ: Editorial – Protecting election integrity
http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2008/04/protecting_election_integrity.html - PA: Election systems in Pa. don’t get vote of confidence
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_560581.html - PA: State preparing for huge voter turnout
http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19453238&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=416046&rfi=6 - PA: Lawmaker fears state not ready for election
Workers ready to help voters with ID, other questions, official says
http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/120726871063590.xml&coll=1 - PA: Fayette County – Fayette adopts guidelines for new voting machines
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_560627.html - TX: Waste of money?
Low voter turnout has clerks questioning runoff efficiency
http://www.timesrecordnews.com/news/2008/apr/03/waste-money/ - VT: Douglas vetoes campaign finance, instant-runoff voting bills
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080404/NEWS/80404029/-1/NEWS05 - WV: Ohio County – Ireland: No Identification Needed to Vote in West Virginia
http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/507906.html - WV: Ireland says Ohio County’s voter ID policy violates state law
http://www.dailymail.com/News/statenews/200804040102
**”Daily Voting News” is meant as a comprehensive listing of reports each day concerning issues related to election and voting news around the country regardless of quality or political slant. Therefore, items listed in “Daily Voting News” may not reflect the opinions of VotersUnite.Org or BradBlog.Com**
re: TX- Waste of money?
Low voter turnout has clerks questioning runoff efficiency
excerpt:
“Walker said that runoff election costs could have been drastically reduced if the county had simply been allowed to use only paper ballots.”
This is a perfect example of how much simpler a plain paper ballot is! And WHY? does it say paper ballots were not allowed? Who disallowed it and why?
This is contrary to my understanding of Texas election law that ALLOWS for paper ballots. If it is because of HAVA requirements, they misunderstand that only ONE handicap accessible machine is required per precinct to comply. And there are handicap vote systems that allow handicap persons to also vote on paper- Vote-pad http://www.vote-pad.us/
What can we do to increase sales of this worthy alternative to the evil e-vote machines?
The story also is an example of the benefits of instant run-off voting, which would avoid run-off election costs.
Good catches, Jenny. Only one small comment in reply (actually two)
If it is because of HAVA requirements, they misunderstand that only ONE handicap accessible machine is required per precinct to comply.
It’s even worse (or better) than that. HAVE requires only one disabled accessible voting “device” (doesn’t say machine, as you note) per polling place (not precinct, so combined precincts still only require one such device to assist blind/disabled voters.)
Beyond that, of course, you’re dead on the money. Oh, except for…
It might avoid election costs, but it would likely lead to trouble. Rather than IRV, might I suggest Approval Voting for such situations, which is not as complicated — thus, doesn’t encourage the further use of e-voting — and therefore, more transparent and less prone to error/gaming overall.
I am no expert in Approval Voting, however, and would encourage feedback from those who might have problems with this type of scheme, which seems to be a nice alternative to plurality voting, but without the potential pitfalls of IRV.
thanks brad,
and how do we help promote vote pad, which i understand is the best solution for HAVA requirements for handicap accessibility…?
do we agree about that? are there other solutions to this problem?
The handicap excuse is why so many are buying the evil e-vote machines. Vote pad may be a simple solution for our pain and suffering, and something election officials can buy into, while everyone else gets paper ballots!
what do you think?