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: 
...
|
| (OR) 8/09 - State: Yikes. Calif. watc... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 10756
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, August 31, 2009 - 6:39 am: | 
|
Back in 2003 and 2004, Black Box Voting issued a "Gotta Be Replaced" list of election officials we considered to be particularly problematic . Most of them have since been fired or have resigned. On this list was Scott Konopasek of San Bernardino County, Calif., and his sidekick, Stephen Trout. Konopasek referred to citizens who wished to observe elections as "terrorists." In front of a New York Times reporter (Konopasek didn't realize that Adam Cohen was with the New York Times when he said this), Konopasek told Black Box Voting investigators that sometimes he had to "massage the data" as it comes in through the pipeline.
Trout was present at the time, and ran up to the counter to order Black Box Voting to stop videotaping. He was even more obnoxious than Konopasek, which is a bit of a feat. Shortly afterward Konopasek and Trout both resigned. Trout and Konopasek then joined with a third "Gotta Be Replaced" official, Riverside County's Mischelle Townsend, to form a consulting group.
It is with surprise, then, that we see the state of Oregon hiring Stephen Trout to head up its state elections division.
As the article says, he's a veteran elections official. Yes, and he has been a supporter of paperless touch-screens and worse, has demonstrated a dreadful attitude towards citizen oversight.
Oregon's 100% vote-by-mail system conceals not only the counting (done on optical scan machines) but also conceals who casts the ballots and the ballot chain of custody. With Trout's hiring, Oregon's elections will now be overseen by a public official who was hostile to public oversight in California. Not a good sign at all for Oregon, but perhaps this will at last take the varnish off Oregon's very popular but heavily concealed vote by mail system. There's nothing like an obstructive public official for motivating citizens to take a closer look!
Oregonians, Black Box Voting has put the on our Watch List due to this hiring decision, and we recommend renewed vigilence by public citizens for all facets of Oregon elections. We will assist by providing suggestions customized to your vote by mail system as we move toward the 2010 mid-term elections.
The Oregonian - August 27, 2009, Jeff Mapes
http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2009/08/californian_gets_top_election s.html
Stephen N. Trout, a veteran elections expert from California, has been chosen by Oregon Secretary of State Kate Brown to head her elections division.
The job of state elections director is one of the most politically sensitive jobs in Oregon. Trout is an interesting choice for Brown - a Democrat - because he actually has a background in Republican politics. An attorney from El Dorado Hills, Trout worked in the 1990s as a counsel and policy consultant to the (Republican) minority leader of the California state Senate. In 2000, he went to work for California Secretary of State Bill Jones, also a Republican.
He is currently registered to vote as a non-partisan, according to the El Dorado County Elections Department.
Brown's spokesman, Don Hamilton, said Trout's political philosophy did not come up during the selection process. "It's supposed to be a non-partisan job," he said. "You're not supposed to bring your political leanings into it."
Trout, 41, was praised by Brown and by Klamath County Clerk Linda Smith, a member of the committee that reviewed the candidates, for his wide expertise in election issues. He replaces John Lindback, who left in May to work for the Pew Center for the States.
|
Edward Pennington Craig
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Edward_craig
Post Number: 13
Registered: 1-2006
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, August 31, 2009 - 11:48 am: |
|
Stalin was correct. It matters not how voters vote as long as we control the count. |
greeley Wells
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Greeley
Post Number: 1
Registered: 9-2009
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, September 5, 2009 - 5:29 pm: |
|
There must be paper!!!!!! This is the people's vote! |
Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased
Post Number: 339
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, September 6, 2009 - 7:35 am: |
|
There's nothing like an obstructive public official for motivating citizens to take a closer look!
I hope that straw is graspable in this case. |
Lisa Michaels
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Lmichaels
Post Number: 1
Registered: 12-2010
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, December 4, 2010 - 8:01 am: |
|
I just learned yesterday that the precinct boxes we are slated to recount on Tuesday (the final day to demand a recount)are not labeled and are blank boxes with no defining characteristics on the seals so that they could easily open them and ensure they are stuffed with the appropriate number of ballots. We need help to raise enough money to support a recount of her entire CD3 ballots by contributing to dlopezforcongress.com today. |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 1342
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, December 5, 2010 - 7:54 am: |
|
The question is, what are you paying to recount? And what is "certifiable" about such an election? The whole basis for verifying that the results announced are the real results (that the votes were counted properly and in a secure way) is questionable, so you have to determine if it also is legal. Legal and questionable is not uncommon; the more I look at election laws, the better I get at finding loopholes. (I would not be a welcome member of a magician's audience.)
Counting ballots that cannot be confirmed as to originals, especially if sealing methods are not common practice in OR elections, legitimizes the count that occurs. And absent proof anything material and untoward occurred, it may be the imperfect only recourse.
From a logical, rational point of view, as you point out, these ballots are presented with a "sealing method" that makes it impossible to prove they have not been tampered with, repackaged or the contents modified. You may further wish to explore whether the blank seals are also peelable and reusable, as they were in NH in the presidential primary in 08.
If you do an internet search under "evidence, chain of custody" or "rules of evidence", it is possible to gain an appreciation of how theoretically can establish that ballots or bullets (in a crime scene) are original evidence.
I mention this because sometimes citizens and election officials have little understanding of what "chain of custody" means. It does not mean "everything is okay because a single police officer drove the ballots to the counting area and had them in his custody" or "they were locked in our storage area -- the only people who can get in are the entire staff, but Jimmy lost his key and no problem the guy down on the corner copied him another one off Lisa's key"! If the candidate understands chain of custody, then her representative can point out the lack of a credible chain of custody understanding the principles of good chain of custody.
Tamper-evident tape (you peel it off and it leaves a mark) makes tampering obvious - resealable labels and cheap clear plastic tape that is removable without removing the box surface will conceal it. Election officials signing labels and dating them in their handwriting, with the label sealed OVER the only box opening using a tamper evident seal (not a peel off type) also verify with the ballot totals written on the seal would also be an improvement. In my opinion there should also be some sort of seal on that label that cannot be photocopied so that the seals cannot be duplicated, but I don't know anybody who does this.
IS this method of storage both legal in your state and common practice? Absent any proof of wrongdoing, then all that exists is a system ripe for exploitation, but if not legal or common practice, it does raise questions.
Oregon due to vote by mail has an extended timeline in which ballots are coming in, and if this sealing method is legal and commonplace, Oregon may have coupled with it a system of storing them that would allow going back and modifying or replacing ballots. Not a good combo.
If US senator or US Congress candidates were on this ballot when Lopez ran, then it is considered a "federal election" and federal law applies. I would look to federal law to see if there is an interpretation that election materials have to be stored in a manner consistent with rules of evidence.
I have briefly examined Oregon's online version of its election statutes but was unable to find quickly the statutory language about how the ballots are to be stored in Oregon. I may have missed this info, or it may be contained in SOS regulations (be aware of the implications in your state;, as we have learned in my state, enforcement of election rules below the statutory level is not provided for in our statutes!) I recommend finding out.
Please keep us informed of what happens and anything you learn on the legality of the sealing method in OR. |
Delia Lopez
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Delia
Post Number: 1
Registered: 12-2010
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, December 5, 2010 - 8:30 am: |
|
I am Delia Lopez and I am a Federal Congressional Candidate. We have photos of ballot boxes sealed and date, precinct and four signatures on the seal as required. Then we have these. I was told that Multnomah county programs their own computers. We asked that an audible tally be announced at the audit recount. We were told your old friend Steve Trout now HMIC of Oregon voting said no. I FAXed in the demand for recount on the day OR vote was certified and the next day a volunteer went down to take pictures of the seals to be able to compare them on Tuesday 12/7 at 8:30 when the 6 precinct recount we are paying for is being done. OR recount law says we have the right to be there when the Election Board Official Seal is broken. Lacking signatures it is impossible to determine if these have been tampered with. They have stacks of unused ballots ORS 254.483 Procedures after 8 p.m. on election day; unused ballots. Immediately after 8 p.m. on the day of an election:
(1) The county clerk shall destroy all unused absentee and regular ballots in the county clerk’s possession.
Complaints on that issue were made in 2008 to no avail. I am searching OR statutes to find sealing and storage laws OR or FED if you know where to look please point me in the right direction.
Thank you
Delia |
Delia Lopez
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Delia
Post Number: 2
Registered: 12-2010
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, December 5, 2010 - 8:39 am: |
|
I should add this http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=473728546682&set=a.473726106682.259385.71 0981682 we are paying to recount by hand six precincts. The Official seals are to have the date, precinct number and four signatures on them to seal the boxes in a way that makes it difficult to open without breaking the seal. The seals are blank on the precincts I requested the recount on. They have piles of boxes and envelopes and labels as well as ballots. You can see them in the photographs these were taken the day after I FAXed in the recount demand. We have pictures taken the day of the audit recount and those boxes seals were properly handled. The other counties I spoke with seem to fill out the seals. I have not located an ORS that says they must, but it seems like if I handed you a blank check for payment of services it would mean nothing. This is the same thing. Is it purposeful fraud or total incompetence? |
Ross Jory
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rmjory
Post Number: 12
Registered: 5-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, December 5, 2010 - 12:33 pm: |
|
christine c reid wrote:
"Oregon due to vote by mail has an extended timeline in which ballots
are coming in, ..."
A side-note: no. You may be confusing the rules for Oregon's vote-by-mail with the rules in neighboring Washington state. Oregon ballots are ***due election day at poll closing time,*** period. They can be mailed or dropped in-person to any designated drop site, and there are a few disabled-access voting machines at election offices, but after closing time election day, that's it. (I'm not sure if there are exceptions for military service overseas.)
This is unlike Washington state, which has it all: full precinct in-person voting plus mail-in, requiring only that mail-in ballots be ***postmark-dated on or before election day*** I recall. The WA rules mean there could be significant uncertainty (i.e. for close contests) as ballots trickle in by mail after election day. How long do they wait, 5 days, a week, ten days?
I'm an Oregon resident. I either deliver the ballot in person (I live within walking distance of Washington County elections offices) or mail it a week early via priority mail with delivery tracking (when I'm out of state).
I don't know about the disposition-storage-destruction of ballots received in Oregon after election night, but they should not be counted. You would think common sense would say they should be left unopened (i.e. still in the postmarked envelope) and stored separate from the counted ballots, then shredded. |
Ross Jory
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rmjory
Post Number: 13
Registered: 5-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, December 5, 2010 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Hmm, I may have spoken in haste. Yes, there is an extended period ***before*** the election where ballots are coming in, you are correct. In 2010, I think ballots were mailed to voters about a month before the election.
There is handling and storage activity in the month prior to election day; what happens as the ballots arrive, are they boxed up and all counted election day, or are they tallied daily as they arrive? I could assume the county starts checking signatures and opening mailing envelopes, then removing the mailing envelope (to strip voter ID), prior to election day. Are they stored in the inner secrecy envelopes, or are those opened and the ballots unfolded and stored flat?
And as you well point out, how do election officials define the chain of custody during these steps? And what can be observed / inspected by the public?
Thus far in this thread, there is talk of recounting "precincts." Oregon doesn't have the old polling precincts set up in garages, schools and community halls (as it could be inferred). The only election places I know of are in county county offices, i.e. permanent offices with typical office facilities (I'm thinking of the SE Portland office on Belmont and 11th for Multnomah County, for example). High-population areas set up additional temporary drop sites with badged election staff on election day (list of sites is in the voter's pamphlet distributed a month before election day), but I wouldn't go so far as to call these drop sites "precincts." I can take my ballot to any drop site in the county; gone is the notion of "my local precinct" in the immediate neighborhood locale within the large city (the SASE sends it by mail back to the right county office). |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 1343
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, December 5, 2010 - 9:31 pm: |
|
Lisa Michaels started a thread under Multnomah County, so I posted some additional info under that thread.
Here is a link to the general Multnomah County area of the site:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/165/69959.html?1291576699 |
|
|
