Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| Challenging eScan Integrity in Orange... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Darlene Little
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Dare2anchor
Post Number: 2
Registered: 02-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 10:30 pm: | 
|
Ballot images lawsuit? Absentee hand counts?
2. To test the Hart-Intercivic eScan integrity in Orange County, California
2.1. I have asked for copies of the images of the ballot scans collected during the November 8th Special Election. I was told I could not have them by the OC Legal Counsel. Under the freedom of information act, I would like to challenge this ruling. It is a precedent that needs to be challanged. I believe that the reason is the proprietary nature of the images claimed by Hart-Intercivic.
2.2. I have talk to the OC RoV and the images ARE collected and used to process the votes. THIS also speaks to the Landers suit now in the Supreme Court.
2.3. What course of action should I take to challenge this if any?
2.4. A second pronged attack at this eScan integrity would be to demand and pay for a manual recount of the absentee ballots cast during an election. This would have been perfect for the 48th Special of 12/6/05 since it was confined and small. There is a special election being held in the 34th state senatorial races to replace John Campbell who won the 48th Congressional race. I am not even sure there will be a real race in this one since I am not aware of a challenger to Tom Harman the Assemblyman from that district. But this would be a confined and small race to request a manual absentee ballot recount. (Unlikely to show anything if there is no challengers)
Thank You |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3544
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 11:09 pm: |
|
We, too, would like to challenge the decision of Orange County to violate California public records laws by denying the ballot image records requests.
We have a small legal fund set aside to do so. Can you send us a copy of your records request and their denial?
Preparatory to asking for a hand recount -- and this applies equally to San Diego County -- you'll want to do public records requests for the procedures on ballot chain of custody.
You need to know:
1) Are all ballots serial numbered
2) How do they record the assignement of the serial numbered ballots to precincts (San Diego) and absentee batches (Orange)
3) Find out where the ballots are printed, where the envelopes for the absentees are stuffed, where they are presorted for mailing, who gets them from the post office, who sorts the incoming ballots, what the observations and camera are on that, where they are kept, how they are batched for processing, who runs them through the scanner and when, what records are kept of the scanner results...go through the entire process through public records requests, as if you were trying to find the holes.
Only AFTER you establish all parameters of chain of custody is a manual recount meaningful. In Volusia County, for example, we discovered they were printing ballots in the warehouse (which didn't happen to have serial numbers...) and that an individual had a key and 24-hour access to the ballot vault, with no video cameras. That pretty much shot the idea of paying for a manual recount down. |
Jo Anne Karasek
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jo_anne_karasek
Post Number: 93
Registered: 08-2005
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 7:52 am: |
|
After spending two weeks in Lucas County (Toledo, Ohio) doing a partial post November 2004 election audit, I found some interesting information about how its serial numbering of ballots work.
First, they have two stubs for each ballot. One stub, marked Stub A, is given to the voter with the ballot. That stub is theoretically put in a separate container at the time of voting to give a separate verification of the votes cast. The second stub, marked Stub B, is left on the pad from which the ballot and Stub A is removed.
I reviewed the stubs in a few precincts and found that they had some duplicate numbers voted with Stub A's, even though the Stub B's did not have duplicate numbers. The only explanations I can think of for this are that they had counterfeit ballots with counterfeit stubs, or they had stubs, and ballots, from more than one precinct that were put in that precinct's election records. (Stubs from more than one precinct could more likely have happened if more than one precinct was in a polling place.)
The auditing purpose of the stubs was seriously damaged because there was no designation of the precinct on the stubs.
They also had some Stub B's included with the Stub A's, which would make it possible for the ballots voted with the Stub B's to be counterfeit ballots.
And they occasionally had a ballot stub number included that was way beyond the numbers for that precinct.
I can't tell what was done about stubs for the absentee ballots yet. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3641
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 8:09 am: |
|
Dynamite information, JoAnne! And by the way, there is absolutely no reason not to have the precinct as part of the serial number, and obviously this must be done if the serial number is to have any value.
But the mismatched serial numbers? When we're going with the simplest explanation, it does seem to be tampering. (But if they substituted from another precinct, that also something more serious than "human error")
Relevance to "best practices"
Isn't it interesting that when they are having panels for so-called "best practices" they are not inviting the people who have actually been doing the auditing?
When it comes to "best practices" the ballots should be serial-numbered and the serial number should be tied to the precinct.
Also, when it comes to "best practices" they need to quit cutting or tearing off the poll tapes right at the top line. Why? Because the telltale sign for a tampered memory card is the message "memory card error" that appears right ABOVE the top line. ( See Volusia County poll tapes (look at precincts 607-629) We found this error on many Volusia County poll tapes, but many more were cut so that, if this message existed, it would have been removed. (Note that this message only appears if memory card tampering is done clumsily; if done skillfully there is no telltale sign. Hursti noticed than sometimes when he did a slight typo the "memory card error" message was produced.) Actually, even better practices would be to have that error message embedded farther down on the tape so it can't be obliterated.
And best practices should also include actually doing something about it if you have poll tapes with the message "memory card error" -- that is absolutely a sign of a tampered memory card. A battery-dead memory card, or a "corrupt memory card" has the symptom that it freezes up and does not read at all.
Best practices should also include actually doing something about it if the serial number stubs are mismatched. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 1719
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, February 11, 2006 - 8:32 am: |
|
JoAnne,
This is fantastic detective work.
Has this been mentioned previously? I don't remember ever hearing anything about it.
I'm surprised that ballot numbers are not unique. One would then keep records on ballot distribution--e.g., that ballot nos from 1 to 1999 went to a Zybckinawa precinct and 2000 to 7999 went to Boggerama precinct. Alternatively one could start the number with a 2-letter code that would relate to the precinct (ZY0001-ZY1999 and BG0001-BG5999).
I like the Swiss idea of using a special notch to indicate different elections; this could presumably also be made specific for a given precinct. |
Jim March
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Jimmarch
Post Number: 130
Registered: 01-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 9:55 pm: |
|
The California SecState's office has now published some data on the latest revision including volume test data:
http://ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_vs.htm
Towards the bottom.
Looking at the Hart scanner report now...WHOA, that ain't pretty! They actually managed to beat *Diebold's* error rate on the initial batch of TSx boxes, with an optical scan unit that you'd *think* would be more reliable!
To quote the staff report:
-----------
The Office of Voting Systems Technology Assessment does not recommend certification
of the eScan at this time due to the following significant errors encountered in volume
testing:
• 42% of the machines experienced an error condition at least once that could not
be handled by the operating system and required the eScan to be rebooted
• Many incidents of ballot jams on this machine require the ballot box to be
unlocked and opened to clear the jam. This is an unacceptable security risk in a
polling place on Election Day and should never occur.
• On jammed ballots, there is no clear ballot status indicator informing the voters or
the poll workers about whether or not the ballot has been scanned and counted.
Additionally, the use of cryptic, unexplained numeric codes is likely to undermine voter
confidence when they have problems with their ballots and can’t determine themselves
what the cause of the error is or how it should be resolved.
-----------
Oh my. Last time I saw something that ugly it was at the scene of a motorcycle wreck. (Not mine, thanks for asking...)
Wow.
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
TRIPLE PROTECTION FOR ELECTION 2006 - STARTING NOW:
(1) Use Freedom of Information, public records requests ("All American Paper Chase")
(2) Try Dumpster Diving for Democracy
(3) Candid America Project - Don't leave home without your camcorder
HOW TO DO IT: http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/6/6.html
|
Joycelynn Straight
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Fairelections
Post Number: 20
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 3:28 am: |
|
Jim March, what op scanner does Orange County use to count it's absentee ballots? The Hart-InterCivic eScan machines are used only at election day polling places and early voting sites according to the SoS website.
I ask because the loser of an Orange County primary race for a state Senate seat is going to request a recount next week, but is undecided on whether to have the op scan machines recount the ballots or to request a manual recount of them. With the error rate produced by op scanners, I'm wondering why she is even undecided. In California, does it cost more to request a manual recount as opposed to a machine recount?
The Senate race is between Tom Harman and Diane Harkey. Harkey lost by just 236 votes out of 98,344 ballots cast, 75% of which were absentee ballots counted on op scan machines.
Here is what the April 14th edition of the LA Times had to say about this:
"The results will be certified next week; then Harkey has five days to request a recount. The counting can be done either electronically with the same machines that scanned the first vote, or by hand. Harkey campaign manager Scott Hart said they hadn't decided which to request."
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-ocsenate14apr14,1,6679 290.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california&ctrack=1&cset=true
This is Harkey's website:
http://www.dianeharkey4statesenate.com/contactMe.asp
I'd urge her to conduct a manual recount even if it costs more than a machine recount - the price of democracy is worth it and confidence in the results would be, well.... priceless!
Joycelynn |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 2093
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 4:04 am: |
|
Joycelynn,
I sure hope Harkey listens to your wise counsel. Doesn't she appreciate how hackable the op scan machines are? Why is she even considering having her recount done with those machines?
A recount done with an optical scaner would be of zero value. There is no way that anyone would be able to prove there had not been tampering of the machines on either the original count or the recount. The pre- and post-election tests of the machines are virtually worthless--they are NOT a guarantee of accuracy or non-tampering.
Unfortunately most election officials and vendors spout reassuring words that the machines are accurate and can be trusted, and that their office has excellent security procedures, yada yada yada. You know that those reassuring words--even if believed by some election officials--are completely untrue. Anyone who has spent time researching this issue knows they are wrong, and knows that vendors don't hesitate to lie to election officials and to the public.
I hope Harkey realizes that hand counting, when done with a bipartisan team of citizen observers, is her only hope of finding out who actually won the election and by what margin.
FWIW, the closeness of an election is not an indicator of whether or not the results are likely to be accurate. Primaries in which there was a wide margin of victory could be accurate, or not. With electronic devices it is easy to change a lot of votes or just a few, and in either case the only way to discover whether or not the results are correct is to hand-count all the ballots.
If the winning candidate has any ethics then he, too, should support a manual recount of all the paper ballots.
Forgive me for butting in here, Joycelynn. Hopefully Jim March will respond to your original questions about the machines in Orange County.
As someone who has stood for election on two occasions, I feel passionately that all candidates deserve a fair, accurate, transparent counting of their votes. Otherwise all the candidates' time and effort is wasted because there's no way of knowing the real results for sure.
(Message edited by catherine_a on April 15, 2006) |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 4067
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 7:13 am: |
|
Orange County uses Hart Intercivic optical scan machines for its absentee ballots. These ballots have the digitial photocopy. We requested the digital images from Orange County after one of the elections; erroneously, they claimed the ballot images are the ballots (?!?) and therefore must remain under lock and key for a designated period of time.
This answer is quite stupid, because the ballot images are never under lock and key and sit there on the server, but okay. We haven't litigated that. I would strongly advise the candidate to request the ballot images -- all of them -- because under California law they are a public record. With them, ALL of the ballots can be counted by hand using the images. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 4068
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 7:17 am: |
|
Darlene - We agree that this should be litigated. Do you have a good strong public records lawyer? If so, some of the Diebold Qui Tam money which I donated into the Black Box Voting litigation fund might want to assist with funding a records lawsuit on the ballot images.
Unfortunately, California does not have a penalty fee for wrongfully withholding records, and doesn't necessarily allow for recovery of attorneys fees when you win either.
We are small and have a million things battering at us at once, but if we can get some support and legwork from you or CEPN, we may be able to pull off a lawsuit.
We contacted one attorney there, but the fee seemed out of line for what the project is, so we would be open to other avenues. It should be a good litigator with public records litigation experience if possible. |
Joycelynn Straight
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Fairelections
Post Number: 21
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 1:19 pm: |
|
Catherine- Thanks for "butting in!" Your post nudged me to contact Ms. Harkey to urge her to conduct a manual recount as opposed to a machine recount.
I just now called her and left a voice mail at both phone numbers listed on her site. [Diane Harkey: (949) 251-0850 Manager: Scott Hart (949) 230-6998] Perhaps others could call, also? I refered her to BBV and this website for more info.
The winning candidate isn't supporting a recount at all, manual or otherwise. According to the newspaper article: "Harman's campaign manager said they weren't worried about a recount. 'A recount doesn't make any difference to us because we're confident with the numbers,'Jacobs said.
In the first post of this thread Darlene Little wrote:
"There is a special election being held in the 34th state senatorial races to replace John Campbell who won the 48th Congressional race. I am not even sure there will be a real race in this one since I am not aware of a challenger to Tom Harman the Assemblyman from that district."
This is the contest to which Little is refering and presents a chance for her desired "second pronged attack at eScan integrity."
The Associated Press reports the race this way:
"More than 98,000 ballots were cast in the 35th District, and Harman, a six-year Assembly veteran, had 37,840 votes, or 38.8 percent. Harkey, a member of the Dana Point City Council, had 37,604, or 38.5 percent. The lone Democrat, public school teacher Larry Caballero, was in third place with 22,176, or 22.7 percent...
Harkey spokesman Scott Hart said that after the election is certified, the campaign will ask for a recount because the margin is just two-tenths of a percent. [California is one of the states that doesn't require an automatic recount for extremely close races -- candidates must request and pay for any recount themselves!]
"All of the ballots we've reviewed over the last two days were in Harkey's direction and she has gained votes," Hart said.
>snip
The special election was triggered last December when then-state Sen. John Campbell, a Republican, won an election to replace Christopher Cox in the House of Representatives after Cox was appointed chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern _california/14337684.htm
I hope, as you do, Catherine, that "...Harkey realizes that hand counting, when done with a bipartisan team of citizen observers, is her only hope of finding out who actually won the election and by what margin." |
Joycelynn Straight
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Fairelections
Post Number: 22
Registered: 12-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 2:42 pm: |
|
Bev - Diane Harkey's manager, Scott Hart, returned my call just now. He says all of the ballots, absentee and election day, were paper ballots. The Hart eSlate, which Orange County was going to use, did not get certified by the SoS for this election, so 100% of the ballots were op-scanned by the county's eScan machines.
According to Mr. Hart, the county has already conducted it's 1% audit. The audit matched the first count exactly, but it was not a manual audit of the ballots -- they audited the ballots by machine -- not much of a check that was! When they audit with those machines, though, do they recount the ballot images or the ballots themselves?
The cost of a recount isn't the factor Harkey's campaign is concerned about -- time is. In ten days the county will need to print material about the candidates in this race for the upcoming June election.
Mr. Hart asked me to email to him contact info about BBV, which I will do shortly, so expect to hear from him soon.
Joycelynn |
Bruce Sims
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 739
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 8:17 pm: |
|
Joycelynn, if, in fact the 1% audit was done with machines,not manually as proscribed by the Election Code 15360:"15360. During the official canvass of every election in which a voting system is used, the official conducting the election shall conduct a PUBLIC MANUAL tally of the ballots tabulated by those devices cast in 1 percent of the precincts chosen at random by the elections official. If 1 percent of the precincts should be less than one whole precinct, the tally shall be conducted in one precinct chosen at random by the elections official.
In addition to the 1 percent count, the elections official shall, for each race not included in the initial group of precincts, count
one additional precinct. The manual tally shall apply only to the race not previously counted.
Additional precincts for the manual tally may be selected at the discretion of the elections official."
then that is an election violation.
If the EScan machines use memory cards that store the digital images, then that is the only thing that would impact-doubtfully- printing material for the June primary.
More to the point, both CA election Code and FEC standards dictate that such cards or other digital media used for the tabulation of votes by saved for 6 months or 18 months respectively.
It wouldn't surprise me that Orange is trying to reuse the cards in violation of the law; especially if they are saying the manual audit was conducted with machines. |
|
|
