Forum Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
Forum Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Forum Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Forum Tools
Help/Instructions
Contact Moderators
Administration
|
| 7-27-06: Expensive, Insecure, Illegal... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
From the Mailbag
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mailbag
Post Number: 78
Registered: 10-2005
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 3 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 3:16 pm: | 
|
By the fantastic citizen oversight team in Riverside County, Calif. known as SAVE R VOTE
Verification of the June 6 election was undertaken by the biggest citizen election auditing team assembled yet in one county: Approximately 70 Riverside residents set out to see if it was even possible to authenticate the results of the June primary.
Their conclusion: Impossible.
The reason: Riverside County staff impeded the citizen observer teams.
Riverside officials refused to post poll tapes at the precinct -- a critically important safeguard, and the main safeguard against undetected election manipulation through the central tabulator.
Oddly, Riverside chose to invest money in disabling the paper trail. Why not have one? Why spend money to make it impossible to audit?
WHAT WERE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS?
I. LEGAL AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE:
A. Potential disqualification of voting system due to B and C below.
B. Refusal to post precinct results and purposeful disabling of voting machines from printing election day results at close of polls.
C. Noncompliance with state election code laws and federal HAVA qualifications.
II. SECURITY AND EQUIPMENT:
A. Failure to establish, maintain and log a chain of custody resulting in the temporary loss of 17 voting cartridges.
B. Transmission of election data over county Intranet system is contrary to recommendations of numerous voting security sources.
C. Loss of control/chain of custody of voting cartridges and printers at collection site
D. Scanning equipment is over 20 years old and never qualified for Federal approval
III. AUDITABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY:
A. No provision for outside, independent audit of election.
B. The legally sanctioned Election Observer Panel was denied “meaningful access” as prescribed by law.
IV. FISCAL:
A. Delays by the Registrar of Voters office compelled the county to spend $13 million on new equipment while a retrofit of existing machines would have saved taxpayers at least half that amount.
B. Purchase of uncertified equipment may have violated state law
C. Averaging the past six years, Riverside County has spent $5 million per year on a voting system purported to save taxpayers $600,000 in annual ballot printing costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Independent outside process audits:
a. Audit of existing procedures and compliance with appropriate laws and regulations and recommendations for changes needed for General Election in November 2006
b. Audit of the November 2006 General Election while in progress with recommendations for improvements
2. Independent outside financial audit by a qualified audit firm of costs of e-voting system from 2000 (inception) to June 30, 2006 with a comparison to cost (including cost per voter) of using paper ballots for that same period. Absentee ballot costs and trends should be reviewed separately.
3. Establish a year-round Citizens Independent Voting Integrity Commission (CIVIC) to provide direct and meaningful observation of all aspects of the election process and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. Such commission shall be comprised of one member appointed by the County Central Committee Chair of each political party and five members from the election integrity community.
4. A public meeting by August 1, 2006 to include SAVE R VOTE, representatives of the Board of Supervisors, the Registrar of Voters and the Election Observer Panel (EOP) to address election integrity questions, recommendations and implementation of items 1-3 above.
5. Continuation of the Election Observer Panel (EOP) current membership through the end of 2006 to maintain continuity and momentum.
CONCLUSION:
“As I tell my citizens in Leon County (FL), ‘Don’t trust me, require that I verify to you that the results are accurate’. Demand accountability all across the political spectrum, because if you do not require accountability, you are only going to get an oligarchy or authoritarianism.”
“Election officials suffer from one particularly acute disease. I would call it the arrogance of authority.” – Ion Sancho, Elections Supervisor, Leon County, FL.
Prepared by SAVE R VOTE*
a Project of Democracy For America- Temecula Valley (DFA-TV)
Authors include, in alphabetical order:
Tom Courbat
Jerry Ewig
Maxine Ewig
Paul Jacobs
Rick Palardy
*SAVE R VOTE is an acronym for
Safe And Secure Elections Require Voter Observation of Touchscreen Equipment
* * * * *
From Black Box Voting -- If your citizen's group plans to try to authenticate the results of an election, you'll find the full report helpful:
Read this too:
If you need to mobilize your local group, start with this:
Citizen visual presentation to describe the problem and mobilize a group to citizen action:
http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/2197/33055.html
Coming Aug. 1: The Black Box Voting CITIZEN TOOL KIT TO TAKE BACK ELECTIONS
It's free. The concept is simple: It contains 20 modules, each no more than 1-2 pages, simple and easy to follow. It is designed for ordinary citizens. Pick one -- any one -- and just do it. |
Tom Sweet
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tsweet
Post Number: 10
Registered: 06-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Regarding item II B, methinks that they have a closed network for their election management system. Larger counties have their servers secured in a locked room with workstations outside. California Sec of State does not allow any of the machines to have wireless connections, only wired-ethernet and they need to be on a closed network. |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 5464
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, July 28, 2006 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Tom - That may be, but unless ALL areas are viewable to the public they are in violation of the law. Riverside, from what I understand, has refused to tell citizens where the networked computers are, much less allow them to watch.
* * * * *
To the powers that be: "We're counting ALL the votes. Get over it."
Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story
Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.
|
Tom Sweet
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Tsweet
Post Number: 11
Registered: 06-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 9:31 am: |
|
Printing of the precinct tapes is a pretty easy task. I can't speak to the law in CA as to whether it is required or not, but it takes a couple of minute for a small election and a little more time for a larger one.
I do know that periodically, the polling locations must update the list of who as voted and post it outside the polling place. One of the candidates (of associates of) in the CA county I was at station at was looking at the list and calling voters who had not voted reminding them to vote. Reviewing who has voted during the day is legally allowed. Either Michigan or Wisconsin requires the precinct tapes be printed at the end of the election day. |
Tom Courbat
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Leftisbest
Post Number: 16
Registered: 06-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 9:42 am: |
|
Printing of the tapes is a piece of cake, and required by NASED (Fed organization that "qualified" E-Voting systems before its disbandment on July 11, 2006), the State of CA and the certification document issued by the State. This registrar not only refused to comply, she asked for a waiver from the Secretary of State, it was refused, and she then directed her staff to disable the printers so they could NOT comply. This is arrogance in the highest dosage.
Regarding the voter registration rolls, they do exactly what you outlined in your second paragraph. That tells nothing about the OUTCOME of the vote, which is what your first paragraph (and mine here) deals with.
I hope we get a LOT more discussion on this report. People have to click on it and when you read it, you will be blown away!!
Tom Courbat |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3107
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 12:25 pm: |
|
Even the brief summary here is damning.
The question is, how to best use this information? What are the implications for legislative reform?
What is required to get enforcement? (litigation?)
To what extent is this relevant for other jurisdictions which will have different laws and regulations? (I'm sure it is relevant--but how to best communicate the facts, their relevance, and who needs this information?) |
Tom Courbat
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Leftisbest
Post Number: 18
Registered: 06-2006
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 1:08 pm: |
|
I hope to meet with Board of Supervisors members one-on-one prior to the August 15th presentation to the entire board. I would like the time to show them WHY and HOW they have a major SERIES of problems and why it is important to get out of the denial phase.
There are any number of options, including Grand Jury investigation, referral to the State Attorney General and Secretary of State, the Governor, etc. The press is doing a fair job (EXCELLENT job by one reporter for The Californian by the name of Chris Bagley), and we hope to bring more pressure to bear by increasing media coverage.
I am open to suggestions - we want to make certain the November 2006 election is clean and transparent, and frankly, I believe that only hand counted paper ballots are the way to go. There are many who see this as too "retro" but I see it as "back to the future". We will see.
Ideas, comments, anyone?? |
dave andersen
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Davearnt
Post Number: 1
Registered: 07-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 1:11 pm: |
|
tom c,
i want to read the registrar's response to the report. how can she continously state that the machines have been certified, if they are not?
tom made an excellent presentation to the board of supervisors' meeting.
dave andersen |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 3110
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, July 29, 2006 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Bev and/or Kathleen,
Have you got any comments regarding ways in which the Riverside revelations are of significance for other places, including other states? Any suggestions on how the outstanding Riverside team's report might best be shared, and with whom? |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 5468
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 8:45 am: |
|
Catherine -- The kind of thing being done by the Riverside team is exactly the kind of thing we are advocating with the Citizen's Tool Kit to Take Back Elections.
Riverside is carrying out an "advanced curriculum" -- they have been at this much longer than most locations. The first lawsuit that I know of against touch-screen voting was from Susan-Marie Weber, from Riverside County.
Jeremiah Akin was the first person I know to do an in depth analysis of many vulnerabilities in the Sequioa voting system. He lived in Riverside for many years (now lives in Austin, TX).
Art Cassel was involved in Riverside citizen actions to take back elections way back in early 2004 -- he's a long-term citizen watchdog over various aspects of government, and already had the skill sets to apply to elections.
Linda Soubirous, a Republican candidate from Riverside County, was the first to go to court and request the so-called "redundant memory" -- and it was her recount, which she paid thousands of dollars for, that Riverside REFUSED TO LET HER HAVE A COPY OF.
It was Riverside citizen action that, in the end, forced one of the nation's most problematic election officials out of office (Mischelle Townsend) -- though she will deny it, saying she left for "family reasons" the press was all over her and she had made so many questionable ethical decisions that the Riverside citizenry was prepared to ride her out of town on a rail.
As Tom points out, the Riverside citizenry overseeing elections is now about 70 people, and they are conducting one of the most in-depth audits by the citizenry yet.
San Diego, of course, is on a full roll now. San Diego is also on an advanced curriculum, having started their citizenry in action back in 2003 while fighting the Diebold touch-screen purchase by then-registrar Sally McPherson.
That effort mobilized excellent citizens like Jim, Shar and Jennifer Hamilton. Jennifer Hamilton was given touch-screens to take home for a sleepover back in spring 2004 -- she videotaped them, photographed them, the whole ball of wax.
Bruce Sims, one of the most effective and persistent citizens doing public records and quality control work is from San Diego, and he's been on this for quite a while as well.
The San Diego citizenry were already having regular meetings way back in February and March 2004, many months before the presidential election.
The systemic lesson for other locations is to just get started. Just take one step.
Trust me, it will grow -- just as it has in Riverside and San Diego.
And, to paraphrase another citizen who is taking back elections in Arizona, John Brakey --
"You find out that no matter what the size of a group is, just 1, 2 or 3 people are doing all the work. That's why I'd rather see 10 groups of 10 people each than one group of 100. At least that way, you know that AT LEAST 10 people are really out there getting things done!"
The Tool Kit to Take Back Elections, which will be released here on Tuesday Aug. 1, is designed for exactly that -- to get citizens taking just one step -- any step -- and to assist citizens in taking effective steps and then to assist citizens in mentoring and leading others.
* * * * *
To the powers that be: "We're counting ALL the votes. Get over it."
Be part of the solution: Please sign up for the NATIONAL HAND COUNT REGISTRY: Go to Home Page - Hand Count Registry is right above lead story
Make November elections the biggest evidence gathering action ever. EVIDENCE = videotape, audiotape and photos. Come prepared. This time, focus on the COUNTING not just the voting.
|
Tom Courbat
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Leftisbest
Post Number: 19
Registered: 06-2006
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 - 5:49 pm: |
|
We hope to be able to publish written guidelines in the next 30 days (or sooner, if possible) of HOW we did every step of the process, from election eve set-ups to post election monitoring and audits, including chain of custody documentation. We want to work with you, Bev, and the new Election Defense Alliance (http://electiondefensealliance.org) to get this information out to as wide an audience as possible as quickly as possible.
Tom |
|
|
Riverside Citizen's Report
