    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 11094
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 9:01 am: | 
|
First, appreciation to this reporter for covering this story. But the story reveals a number of problems:
During testing, the Sutter County, Calif. machines did not pass the test. Testing was shut down. Then officials addressed the issue in private and later told those who had attended the failed testing that the problem had been solved, offering them a result sheet generated without public witnesses. This violates the public testing requirement in California, and perhaps also the Brown Act (public meetings).
The above secrecy problem is just another tentacle of the overall problem of concealment of election process from the public. If the public lacks the ability to see and authenticate crucial election procedures (ie. who actually voted; the counting process), we cannot ultimately select our representatives unless insiders CHOOSE TO ALLOW IT.
Also of interest in the article archived below is the description of enforcement procedures:
A citizen must file a complaint with the secretary of state, who is to refer it to the local district attorney if it is deemed to have merit. I have seen several election law violations in various states referred to the local D.A., but we simply do not see the D.A. ever prosecuting an election official. Ever.
The district attorney usually has a conflict of interest. D.A.s are elected by a concealed process controlled by the very election officials to be investigated. In many locations the D.A. is also the designated defense attorney for the election official.
* * * * *
Appeal-Democrat - June 3, 2010, by Ben van der Meer
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/test-95619-equipment-singh.html
Sutter County's voting machines questioned
The challenger to Sutter County Clerk-Recorder Donna Johnston said he has serious concerns about the equipment being used to conduct Tuesday's primary and the methods used to test the equipment, but Johnston said his fears are unfounded.
Gabrial Singh, a Live Oak resident and former county planning commissioner, said he believes Johnston improperly conducted a required test of voting equipment and procedures.
"It's not only my election I'm concerned about," said Singh, who has not held elected office before. "It's the entire ballot."
Singh said Johnston hadn't scheduled a voting procedures and equipment test until after he contacted her office on May 17.
On May 20, the day of the scheduled test, Singh and several others, including two Sutter County supervisorial candidates, came to the county's elections office to observe an initial run-through of equipment used to count votes.
Soon after the test began, Singh said, the county's voting equipment stopped working properly, and the test was halted. He said Johnston told him he'd be informed when the test resumed, but later in the day, got a call from Johnston saying the equipment had been fixed and he could read a report on what happened.
"That's why they call it a public test," Singh said. "That hasn't been done."
Such tests of both procedures and equipment are required under state elections law, but enforcement is up to individuals to make a complaint to the California Secretary of State's Office for investigation.
If a violation is found, the Secretary of State's Office would forward it to a local district attorney for possible charges, according to the secretary's press office.
Johnston said Singh's concerns were over the initial failure of voting equipment to print out a report of ballots cast and tallied. The problem was corrected, she said.
"I'm not sure about his allegations," she said of Singh. "He's probably not completely familiar with the procedures and how it's done."
She added she's confident she followed the law in her public test, which must be done before every election.
Yuba County Clerk-Recorder Terry Hansen, who had her public test on May 17, said problems found in such a test aren't rare, but are almost always centered on people rather than equipment.
"There's only one outcome that's acceptable: the tally comes through," said Hansen, adding her public test included casting votes in every race, for every candidate, in every possible language, and in every possible method, either electronically or by pen mark.
"You want the expected outcome for every possible event," she said.
Hansen said she'd have greater concerns if a test turned up an equipment error than one caused by a person.
Singh said he's less concerned about how the public test results affect his race.
"I may win, I may not," he said. "The reason I ran was because I didn't believe the sanctity of elections was being followed."
|
